But taking photos at public events isn't illegal. It would be hard to impose a ban on photographs - especially in the age of cell phone cameras and digital technology.
Some experts say civil, rather than criminal, courts hold the only good option for parents:
Margaret Johns, a law professor at UC Davis, said people who post such pictures on adult Web sites could be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress or, possibly, violating privacy for monetary gain.
Winning would be no slam-dunk, according to Johns, who said that a distress-based suit would have to show conduct that was extreme, outrageous, highly offensive and caused severe emotional distress.
"Those are tough requirements. … But I think that publishing a kid's picture on an adult Web site is beyond all bounds of decency, or at least a jury could think so," Johns said.
Of course, finding out whom to sue might be a problem since untangling website ownership and the true identities of those loading content and comments can be nearly impossible - or at least involve costly computer forensics work.
One legislator has proposed has proposed AB 2104 to outlaw posting "a minor's photo, without consent, on a Web site containing obscene matter. Violators could be jailed for one year and fined $5,000." I can see the word "obscene" being a sticky one, though.
We know it when we see it, right?
Anything, if run through the right filter (in someone's mind or on a website) can become obscene. People viewing these websites could just as easily find Flickr photos of random kids and use them to the same ends. That's the world. The world kinda sucks like that. It's not that it isn't worth trying to stop this kind of activity, but just saying "there oughtta be a law" simply doesn't work.
The law can't reach everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment