ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags videotaped , cheerleaders , outraged , parents

Reply
Old 28th May 2006, 11:48 AM   #1
DRBUZZ0
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,320
Parents outraged over cheerleaders being videotaped

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12963229/

I recently saw a news story about parents being upset over someone who has been videotaping cheerleaders at high school football games and selling the tapes on eBay. The tapes are obviously being sold to those with a cheerleader fetish and the filming is very suggestive. (zooming in on certain areas and freezeframing)

They want the sheriff to do something about it. They say they do not understand why this is not being prosecuted.

Well. I got news for them: there’s nothing illegal about filming a public event. Sorry. Finding this revolting, sick, perverted and creepy are all perfectly understandable. I can completely see how if you saw yourself or your daughter in one of these videos, it would make your skin crawl.

Of course, the reality is, that if you are an attractive young women dancing as a cheerleader, there’s going to be a lot of guys in the stands with their minds in the gutter. Sorry…it’s true. But there’s definitely a difference between it being your classmates who are there primarily to watch the game versus having it all over the internet.

Unfortunately, this is not actually anything new. There are plenty of pervs on the internet who trade pictures of young girls in the park or at the beach. Many of them weren’t even taken candidly, but were grabbed from parenting magazine sites or family photo albums.

If I were to find out my neighbor had a lot of blown up bikini pictures of the Olsen twins when they were 14, I’d definitely be very creeped out, and I wouldn’t let him anywhere near any of the younger kids in my family. I’d probably also give a warning to my other neighbors.

I’m really not sure what the solution to this problem is. It may have to come down to the school banning videotaping. Perhaps they could instead offer parents the opportunity to buy a school-made videotape of the game. This goes deeper though. It’s completely reasonable to want to prevent the fear and embarrassment that this sort of thing would cause those shown, but as far as legal recourse: I don’t see any.

It could possibly be taken to civil court, on the grounds that it is exploitive or constitutes harassment. That’d be a tough case to make though. Trying to stop this by taking each individual into such a legal battle would be like trying to use a cork to plug the Titanic.

Perhaps the best solution (if there is one) is simply community shame. I don't think this guy should be harrassed to any extreme extent. But at the very least, knowing that those around you know what you are doing with your camcorder could be some disensentive. At the very least...then he'd know what it's like to be scared of people coming after you (such as an angry father)



Reasons why it is not illegal:


#1. It’s in public. It’s a public event. Furthermore, they are performing in front of an audience. There is no expectation of privacy. If it were a hidden camera somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there might be something to it. But it’s not.

#2. If you want to call this child porn, fine, but then you are saying cheerleading is a sexually erotic activity. There is no nudity. There is no sexual acts. The only thing sexual about the tape is the way it is filmed (the zooming ect). Arguably, the context could be considered sexual. However, at best that’s a very weak case and it would certainly set a dangerous precedent. Imagine: a guy filming his friends on the beach, turns to one of them and says “hey she’s looking hot today.” She’s 17.

#3. Others are allowed to videotape at the game. There’s no prohibition of camcorders. Certainly some of them will show cheerleaders. And, could possibly be considered a turn-on to someone. Even if not filmed in a sexual manner, they certainly could be edited as such.
DRBUZZ0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 12:22 PM   #2
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
CFLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,804
Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 View Post
Reasons why it is not illegal:


#1. It’s in public. It’s a public event. Furthermore, they are performing in front of an audience. There is no expectation of privacy. If it were a hidden camera somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there might be something to it. But it’s not.

#2. If you want to call this child porn, fine, but then you are saying cheerleading is a sexually erotic activity. There is no nudity. There is no sexual acts. The only thing sexual about the tape is the way it is filmed (the zooming ect). Arguably, the context could be considered sexual. However, at best that’s a very weak case and it would certainly set a dangerous precedent. Imagine: a guy filming his friends on the beach, turns to one of them and says “hey she’s looking hot today.” She’s 17.

#3. Others are allowed to videotape at the game. There’s no prohibition of camcorders. Certainly some of them will show cheerleaders. And, could possibly be considered a turn-on to someone. Even if not filmed in a sexual manner, they certainly could be edited as such.
Which means we can publish photos of people attending TAM.
__________________
SkepticReport.com
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 12:46 PM   #3
Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Future New Forum Member
 
Mahatma Kane Jeeves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 View Post
...and selling the tapes on eBay.
The tapes are being created for a commercial purpose. The photographer needs to get a model release, otherwise the parents are perfectly within their rights to file a civil suit. Read more here: CHAPTER 12. Releases.
Mahatma Kane Jeeves is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 12:56 PM   #4
DRBUZZ0
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves View Post
The tapes are being created for a commercial purpose. The photographer needs to get a model release, otherwise the parents are perfectly within their rights to file a civil suit. Read more here: CHAPTER 12. Releases.

Yes, I did look into this. (Actually, I have before, having designed many websites, I always want to make sure things are on the up and up).

In this case, the event is being captured publicly. Arguably, the identity of the person is not actually important toward the money being generated. There are many websites and videos which have public pictures of people and are used for the purposes of generating a profit.

Definately, a suit could be filed on this one. But it is, at best, a difficult case. My best guess is that it would probably not get resolved any time soon and is likely to be appealed.

So I suppose it's not a case where there is "nothing you can do." it's more one where there's no easy sure-fire thing you could do
DRBUZZ0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 12:57 PM   #5
Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Future New Forum Member
 
Mahatma Kane Jeeves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Which means we can publish photos of people attending TAM.
People have perfectly legitimate privacy concerns about having their picture posted on the web. The fact that you can publish doesn't mean you must or should. If someone doesn't want their TAM picture on the net, simply don't put it up (not a horrible imposition, if you ask me.) It's called being a decent human being.
Mahatma Kane Jeeves is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 01:02 PM   #6
tkingdoll
AKA TEEK
 
tkingdoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,471
Originally Posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves View Post
The tapes are being created for a commercial purpose. The photographer needs to get a model release, otherwise the parents are perfectly within their rights to file a civil suit. Read more here: CHAPTER 12. Releases.
That is correct, but the people in the video need to be recognisable (not famous, I mean their face or other uniquely identifying part of them must be shown). The cameraman could get round this by simply not filming their faces.

Guys, we all know the laws and legalities regarding the TAM photos issues, can we please not drag it all up again in an entirely unrelated thread? I'm sure DRBUZZO doesn't want his topic disintegrating into a fight.
__________________

www.stormmovie.net

Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

Last edited by tkingdoll; 28th May 2006 at 01:11 PM.
tkingdoll is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 01:10 PM   #7
Pyrrho
Man in Black
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,690
Quote from the article:

Quote:
CHRISTINE: I think it's embarrassing. They can see your face and if they wanted to find me it's not that hard.

ANA GARCIA: They, would be the 600-plus "happy buyers" who have left "positive feedback" for the seller, "cheer*girls." The tape we have is one of 20 advertised. This one features cheerleaders from schools in and around Santa Barbara, Rio Mesa, Dos Pueblos, Bishop Garcia Diego and Carpinteria.
Identifiable face; identifiable schools; commercial, for-profit enterprise; model release should be required. I'd say the parents of this girl, at least, have a case, as do any parents of any girl whose identifiable face appears in a video.

Consent to be photographed is not an issue, as the venue is a public space. Consent to use an identifiable face in a for-profit venture is an issue.

If all that appears are assorted closeups of anatomical features, it's not actionable, unless the cameraman is filming "private parts".

It will be interesting if this becomes a "test case".
Pyrrho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 01:36 PM   #8
Soapy Sam
NLH
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,051
Perhaps if the parents are concerned about their daughters being videotaped wearing short skirts in public while performing gymnastics and dance routines, they should not have permitted them to do so in the first place?

Yes, I agree filming them and selling the films is bad form and a bit sad, but would the parents feel happier if they videotaped them themselves and sold the tapes for school funds? Then why don't they?

What exactly are we supposed to be indignant about here? Girls dancing in public? Someone filming them? Teenage (or indeed older) masturbatory fantasy?
Cheerleaders are an American phenomenon. While I'm as partial to pretty girls as anyone, I have to admit I never really saw the point, unless it was to give girls something to do at High School Footbal games, so they didn't feel left out. In my schooldays they gave them hockey sticks and turned them loose to kill each other. I recall some male cheerleaders making the odd comment from the touchline, but you had to be a fast runner. Those girls were vicious.


As for guys in the crowd "having their minds in the gutter", I wonder at the sanity of any male of whatever age- and probably many women- who would not rather look at a bunch of pretty girls than a squad of apes in armor.
Soapy Sam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 01:45 PM   #9
Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Future New Forum Member
 
Mahatma Kane Jeeves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 View Post
Arguably, the identity of the person is not actually important toward the money being generated.
I'm not sure that's really relevant. They may not be identified by name, but their likeness is being used without their permission.
Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 View Post
There are many websites and videos which have public pictures of people and are used for the purposes of generating a profit.
Well, we really don't know what the situation is with those videos. The producers may be ignorant of the law and opening themselves up to a lawsuit, or they may have gotten releases or settled with with anyone who complained. However, there is a bit of a grey area between "informational" and "commercial" use.

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 View Post
Definately, a suit could be filed on this one. But it is, at best, a difficult case. My best guess is that it would probably not get resolved any time soon and is likely to be appealed.
You could be right. I think the "Girls Gone Wild" people have been sued repeatedly, but they seem to still be in business.
Mahatma Kane Jeeves is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 02:07 PM   #10
Diamond
SkepticWiki Founder
 
Diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,748
As a non-American, I would have to question what exactly cheerleaders are for, except as a suggestive synchronized sexual display. It may be an all-American custom, but it still had to be questioned. It was only after the bizarre (and still unsolved) murder of Jon-Benet Ramsey that people started asking questions about the child beauty pageants that Jon-Benet was a champion of.

The other part is about (I assume) an unhealthy sexual interest in girls who are clearly below the age of consent. That is much more difficult. Paedophiles have been known to pass around pictures of children taken from clothing catalogues (this commonly happens in prisons in the UK).

From my side of the pond, one of the most noticeable cultural phenomena of the last ten years has been the sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls in popular culture from boy bands and "girl power", the focus has relentlessly been on girls too young to realise the sexual signals they are broadcasting in the fashions they wear are attracting attention from some men.

There's a reality show on at the moment on British TV called "Big Brother". I don't watch it as a rule, but I noticed this evening in passing that all of the women are wearing clothes, make-up and hairstyles of pre-pubescent girl gangs. Clearly nobody is asking any questions in the ad agencies where fashions like this begin.
__________________
"The good thing about the Internet is that no matter how many repressed cretins with outmoded morals and religious fundamentalist idiots hate what you have to say, they cannot burn a website." -www.rinderpest.com
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 02:29 PM   #11
Kopji
 
Kopji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 7,984
When a child participates in a local school event, does that mean we as parents automatically acquiesce to them being displayed worldwide as soft porn? No. So I side with the angry mob of parents with pitchforks and torches on this one (for the sake of argument).

The laws and ethics associated with children are different than that of adults, so the TAM photo example is not quite the same thing.

Removing the TAM photos is something I'd call 'being a good neighbor' ethics. I agree in that case that there was no legal expectation of privacy. BUT whatever JREF could have legally done, a specific request for privacy should be honored if it is not too onerous. That is 'good neighbor' ethics and probably also simple good business.

I generally prefer there be fewer laws rather than more laws, and I lean toward working to solve these kinds of things on a community level.
Kopji is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 04:34 PM   #12
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 10,573
There is a related question regarding the so-called "upskirt" photos and videos that are made without the consent of the victim.
In this case, the perpetrator positions a hidden camera on a stairwell or whatever and tapes women descending the stairs, hoping for a shot of underwear or naughty bits.
There have been attempts to prosecute these individuals, which have met with limited success. In most areas of the country, this practice was not found to be specifically illegal, most likely because the technology that allows it is relatively new. (there have always been "mirror artists" and "peekers" but that's a private enterprise)
Some states, notably New York, have passed specific upskirt legislation, but legal analysts feel that the statute will not pass muster.

Speaking of cheerleaders, our university hosted a summertime cheerleader camp for several years, with up to 2000 nubile enthusiasts partaking. The first year, our new athletic complex was still under construction, and the girls had to practice and perform outside. This drew boys and men like flies....

One fellow was busily photographing with a very professional rig; a large-format camera on a pro tripod with a variety of lenses and such. Everyone thought he was the "official" photographer till the camp organizers started talking among themselves. "No, I didn't hire him...."
He got a lot of pics before we booted him off campus.
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 04:37 PM   #13
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,804
Talk about having it both ways! First america is soundly criticized for being too prudish about teenage sexuality compared to europe

then we are criticized for being too sexual about teenagers compared to europe

nuts
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 05:38 PM   #14
DRBUZZ0
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by tkingdoll View Post
That is correct, but the people in the video need to be recognisable (not famous, I mean their face or other uniquely identifying part of them must be shown). The cameraman could get round this by simply not filming their faces.

Guys, we all know the laws and legalities regarding the TAM photos issues, can we please not drag it all up again in an entirely unrelated thread? I'm sure DRBUZZO doesn't want his topic disintegrating into a fight.


Yeah...I did not reeally bring this up as an example of the rather broad subject of putting pictures of people up in general.

The fact is this: There are plenty of places where you will see candid pictures of people in public. It may be incidental. It may be unwelcome. It may be directly related to making money or not.


It could be a celeberity "slip" or an embarrassing picture of someone. It could be many things.



Yes. You can sue for it. The law can be a little ambiguous on this, at best.


But....any lawsuit involving this sort of thing is never going to be simple or open and shut. More likely it'll just end up in a drawn out legal mess. One of the problems being that manyu of the laws pertaining to this were written before the internet, where people are likely to have all kinds of online photo albums ect.

Unless you have a lot of money and want to make it your personal battle, I don't know that civil law is going to offer you very complete protection
DRBUZZ0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2006, 11:38 PM   #15
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
 
peptoabysmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,468
I had the same reaction when I saw this story. It is a public event, no law was broken.

I can forsee image capturing devices being banned at HS sports events in the future.
__________________
OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
peptoabysmal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 04:59 AM   #16
tkingdoll
AKA TEEK
 
tkingdoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,471
Originally Posted by peptoabysmal View Post
I had the same reaction when I saw this story. It is a public event, no law was broken.
That's not the case. No law is broken until you use the images for commercial purposes (e.g. if you sell the footage on the internet). If you do that, and the faces of the people on the video can be clearly seen, you must obtain a model release form from them before selling the tape.
__________________

www.stormmovie.net

Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie
tkingdoll is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 05:07 AM   #17
PogoPedant
Muse
 
PogoPedant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 764
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
Talk about having it both ways! First america is soundly criticized for being too prudish about teenage sexuality compared to europe

then we are criticized for being too sexual about teenagers compared to europe

nuts
<elitist european hat>
While you oversex your youth with skimpy dresses and suggestive dancing, you deny them the basic sexual education they need to approach the subject in a healthy, safe manner. You say yes to looking and acting sexy, but no to actually having sex.

We, on the other hand, give our youth the necessary sexual education to have a responsible sex life, while we stear them away from becoming oversexed, so that they're not tempted to debut too early or become the object of attraction for perverts of all ages and genders.
</elitist european hat>

The above is of course over-generalizations, but I'm guessing that's where they come from, whomever they are that critizise (sp?) you.
PogoPedant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 08:50 AM   #18
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,804
Good points but


Originally Posted by PogoPedant View Post
<elitist european hat>
so that they're not tempted to debut too early or become the object of attraction for perverts of all ages and genders.
</elitist european hat>
.
I think we could, especially in light of recent threads here, successfully argue that that is NOT the euro policy
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 08:55 AM   #19
morningstar2651
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 58
What about the Right of Publicity? It is the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity.
morningstar2651 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 09:00 AM   #20
morningstar2651
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by morningstar2651 View Post
What about the Right of Publicity? It is the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity.
This means that the cheerleaders can sue the guy for all of his profits, effectively destroying his incentive to put the film on ebay.

EDIT: Plus, 17 U.S.C § 503(a) provides for the impoundment of all infringing copies at any time, as well as the articles used to manufacture the copies.

After the final judgement, these tapes are likely to be destroyed.

Last edited by morningstar2651; 29th May 2006 at 09:06 AM.
morningstar2651 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 12:17 PM   #21
DRBUZZ0
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by PogoPedant View Post
<elitist european hat>
While you oversex your youth with skimpy dresses and suggestive dancing, you deny them the basic sexual education they need to approach the subject in a healthy, safe manner. You say yes to looking and acting sexy, but no to actually having sex.

We, on the other hand, give our youth the necessary sexual education to have a responsible sex life, while we stear them away from becoming oversexed, so that they're not tempted to debut too early or become the object of attraction for perverts of all ages and genders.
</elitist european hat>

The above is of course over-generalizations, but I'm guessing that's where they come from, whomever they are that critizise (sp?) you.

[edit] oh wait. You're from denmark. Do they even have a royal family. To be honest, I cannot remember. But maybe that's because I'm american so we never hear much around these parts about other countries, unless they have oil or something


I hate this whole thing from the europeans. Trust me. There are plenty of sane Americans who aren't quite so hypocritical. Unfortionately, it's the other side that you mostly hear about. I think they have a more organized front. I'm not sure how it breaks down. Obviously, you can't fit everyone into one group or another. Also, it varies a lot by state and location

Oh well. At least we don't spend a portion of the federal budget on the lifestyle of a group of people who are considered to be entitled to it based on the fact that they were born to the right parents.

Arguably, we do things that are just as nonsensical.. But at least it's not quite as blatent.

Ug...There I go. I've just insulted another country. Now I feel bad.

I'm sorry. Thanks for the beatles and led zeppelin and stuff. I really appreciate it.
DRBUZZ0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 12:20 PM   #22
DRBUZZ0
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,320
oh wait....he's from Denmark. Opps. Do they even have a royal family at this point? (oh crap...just revealed how little the americans know about other countries)
DRBUZZ0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 01:55 PM   #23
NoZed Avenger
Bitter Whiner
 
NoZed Avenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,312
Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 View Post
oh wait....he's from Denmark. Opps. Do they even have a royal family at this point? (oh crap...just revealed how little the americans know about other countries)
Yes, they do.

N/A

(American)
__________________
[This Space Available. PM for Rates.]
NoZed Avenger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 03:48 PM   #24
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,231
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger View Post
Yes, they do.
But their royal family consists entirely of murderous depressives. See "Hamlet" for details.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 05:34 PM   #25
rockoon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,106
So the problem is with the manner in which these are filmed? Zooming in on bouncing breasts and so forth? Please....
__________________
Quality never goes begging.
rockoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 06:47 PM   #26
epepke
Philosopher
 
epepke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by Diamond View Post
As a non-American, I would have to question what exactly cheerleaders are for, except as a suggestive synchronized sexual display.
This is exactly what they're for, and everybody knows it.
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."
- Godzilla versus Hedora

"There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military."
-DavidByron
epepke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 10:08 PM   #27
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
 
peptoabysmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,468
Originally Posted by tkingdoll View Post
That's not the case. No law is broken until you use the images for commercial purposes (e.g. if you sell the footage on the internet). If you do that, and the faces of the people on the video can be clearly seen, you must obtain a model release form from them before selling the tape.
I doubt that the faces were what was zoomed in on. Anyway, if the parents or school go the "copyright" route, the outcome will be that the seller of the vidoes will be forced to blur the faces or the parents would have to settle for a portion of the profits, effectively prostituting the cheerleaders.

The parents and school did not persue this avenue of complaint, they went for "peeping" laws and the response was:
Quote:
ANA GARCIA: So we asked the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office to look at the tape. After watching for two hours ...

SGT. ERICK RANEY, SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: People may have their own opinions about it and whether they like it or not. From a law enforcement standpoint there's nothing that breaks any threshold on crimes.
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/9270716/detail.html
Also, in the story, the high school is persuing what legal avenues they can take. My bet is still on no imaging devices allowed at HS games in the future.
__________________
OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
peptoabysmal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2006, 11:54 PM   #28
mgidm86
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,215
Originally Posted by peptoabysmal View Post
Also, in the story, the high school is persuing what legal avenues they can take. My bet is still on no imaging devices allowed at HS games in the future.
So you can't take a picture of your son scoring the game winning touchdown? Doubt it.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 03:51 AM   #29
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 37,869
They had all this stuff in Scotland a few years ago. No videotaping or even photographing the school nativity play in case a pic ends up on a child porn site. A lot of parents were quite annoyed at not being able to photograph their children.

I think the people making the rules were fairly ignorant of the technology - at one point it was said that film-loaded cameras were OK, but nobody was allowed to use a digital camera. Maybe they didn't know what a scanner was.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 04:17 AM   #30
tkingdoll
AKA TEEK
 
tkingdoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,471
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
They had all this stuff in Scotland a few years ago. No videotaping or even photographing the school nativity play in case a pic ends up on a child porn site. A lot of parents were quite annoyed at not being able to photograph their children.

I think the people making the rules were fairly ignorant of the technology - at one point it was said that film-loaded cameras were OK, but nobody was allowed to use a digital camera. Maybe they didn't know what a scanner was.

Rolfe.
I remember this, a few schools also managed to misinterpret the (then) new data protection legislation, thinking that it meant you couldn't film someone elses kid. Ho hum.
__________________

www.stormmovie.net

Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie
tkingdoll is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 09:03 AM   #31
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 6,047
Originally Posted by Soapy Sam View Post
Cheerleaders are an American phenomenon. While I'm as partial to pretty girls as anyone, I have to admit I never really saw the point, unless it was to give girls something to do at High School Footbal games, so they didn't feel left out.
Hey there. GW Bush was a cheerleader.
__________________
When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder
"Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist.
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 11:47 AM   #32
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
 
peptoabysmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,468
Originally Posted by schplurg View Post
So you can't take a picture of your son scoring the game winning touchdown? Doubt it.
You will have the option to purchase it from the official school photographer(s).
__________________
OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
peptoabysmal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 01:09 PM   #33
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,991
Originally Posted by Diamond View Post
The other part is about (I assume) an unhealthy sexual interest in girls who are clearly below the age of consent. That is much more difficult. Paedophiles have been known to pass around pictures of children taken from clothing catalogues (this commonly happens in prisons in the UK).
Clearly below? How old are these girls, anyway? High School is between 14 and 18, right? Is there an age-limit to being a cheerleader? Since you were speaking from a non-US perspective, I'd guess most of the girls were above the age of consent in my country and yours. And even if they weren't, pedophiles aren't interested in girls aged 14+; the definition of a pedophile is someone who likes prepubescent children.
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 01:13 PM   #34
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,522
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
Hey there. GW Bush was a cheerleader.
ah, so it's a consipracy...
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 01:39 PM   #35
tkingdoll
AKA TEEK
 
tkingdoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,471
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
the definition of a pedophile is someone who likes prepubescent children.
No it's not. A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

For the purposes of rape and molestation laws, a child is someone who is under the legal age of consent, whatever that may be for your particular country.
__________________

www.stormmovie.net

Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie
tkingdoll is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 01:44 PM   #36
kittynh
The Hupsu Detective

auctioneer
 
kittynh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,823
Cheerleading has become more suggestive over the years. All the cheerleaders show tummy now days.

doesn't mean it is nice to sell photos of it.

Still, my husbands co worker did a video of "women in the park without their tops at lunch time" in Europe. He made a lot of copies for friends. But he didn't sell it. Mind you, if I liked the guy I'd suggest ebay for him! The sad part is that with special lenses and stuff, most of these women had no clue they were being photographed.
__________________
www.Yankeeskeptic.com, aliens, Bigfoot, and other friends
kittynh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 01:52 PM   #37
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,991
Originally Posted by tkingdoll View Post
No it's not. A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
No, it's not.

A pedophile is someone who likes prebubescent children.

From Wikipeda :

Quote:
Pedophilia, paedophilia, or pædophilia (see spelling differences), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles.
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 04:18 PM   #38
DRBUZZ0
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,320
You can be interested in 15 years and not be a pedophile. However, you'll still be a criminal. Assuming you act on it.
DRBUZZ0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 05:07 PM   #39
tkingdoll
AKA TEEK
 
tkingdoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,471
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
No, it's not.

A pedophile is someone who likes prebubescent children.

From Wikipeda :
Got any better sources than Wikipedia? Because every dictionary I have looked in goes with my definition. And that Wiki entry itself agrees with it in several paragraphs.

Dr Buzzo, you are right, in that pedophilia itself is not a crime. However, in many countries (such as the USA or UK), 15 year olds are considered children so you would technically be a pedophile if you were attracted to one.
__________________

www.stormmovie.net

Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie
tkingdoll is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2006, 05:56 PM   #40
DRBUZZ0
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by tkingdoll View Post
Got any better sources than Wikipedia? Because every dictionary I have looked in goes with my definition. And that Wiki entry itself agrees with it in several paragraphs.

Dr Buzzo, you are right, in that pedophilia itself is not a crime. However, in many countries (such as the USA or UK), 15 year olds are considered children so you would technically be a pedophile if you were attracted to one.

I suppose you could say that this would be an issue over whether we are going for the psycological definition of pedophile vrs. the crime of statatory rape.

It's a completely pointless debate though. In some states (in the US) the age of consent is 16. In some it's 17. In some it's 18. That's how the law is. Of course, the chances of prosecution and penelties go up with age difference. (IE: a judge would be likely to consider a 35 year old and a 13 year old a much bigger deal than a 18 and 17 year old) Also younger would have the possibility of carrying the charges of child endangerment ect.

Of course...it's completely irrelevant what definition of the word you use.

If you are arrested for having sex with a 15 year old and you say, "But she was developed, so I'm not a pedo." they'll probably say "Okay...maybe you're not, but you're still a statatory rapist."


One thing though, which is a bit strange within the law. The age of concent varies and can be as low as 16, but child pornography means under 18. (it's a federal crime). So, you could be in a state where it's legal to have sex with a 16 year old, but not take a picture of it.


Of course....again...this is one of those issues where the age and circumstances is going to come into play as to how severe a judgement you are likely to get.

But also...a bit off topic
DRBUZZ0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.