Reporter accused of porn for filming clothed cheerleaders

Yeah, that's true. Things like swimming and gymnastics meets will be up there, too, but certainly aren't sexualized like cheerleading is.

 

On a side note, it's very funny that Jesus from The Big Lebowski is present for this thread.

"Eight-year-olds, Dude."

 

"When he moved to Hollywood he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a pederast. "

 

It's not like he took pics of assistants at a conference media meeting... give the guy a break...

 

That was the first person I thought of when I saw this thread.

 

Because I can't seem to get the quote function to work properly, this is in response to w-i's post about the 3-year-old.

I believe the difference here would be in the expectation of privacy. A 3-year-old (or a 23-year-old, for that matter) has a reasonable expectation that someone is not going to look up their skirt while they're in public. A cheerleader at a competition does not have that same expectation, because many of the stunts require their, um, undergarments to be revealed. That's why they wear bloomers.

And that the police saw something in the video doesn't tell me anything. Police aren't always right.

I'm just wondering where the line is here. If he had had the video camera out where everyone could see it, would that be OK? If he'd only shot one, or two, or three schools, would that be OK? Why is it OK if his daughter's on the team, but not if she isn't? Should he even have been allowed in? If he went to a high-school basketball game and the dance team did a routine, is he allowed to look at that?

 

i hope you never get called to jury duty.

 

If he wasn't guilty, the cops wouldn't have arrested him.

 

I can see where this is going....

Should you be able to videotape high school events?

Yes. From plays to cheerleading to volleyball to debate, it is a public event. No way can a school say "no videos." Not in this day and age. It would be like shoveling water in a lake.

Should a guy just show up and start filming when he has no real reason to be there, like a relative or friend?

No. That just creeps me out. Many schools, mine does, have a written portion of their Code of Conduct that addresses picture taking of students. If they do not want their child's picture taken, then the students picture is not taken. That also keeps them out of the newspaper and anything the school creates. About 5% of the students are no pictures. Granted, when they step out of the privacy of the classroom and onto a stage or a public event, IMHO, they are losing their right to privacy. But I just wanted to state the schools are already semi-aware of this problem.

But, IT IS THE SCHOOLS JOB TO PROTECT STUDENT FROM PEDS when the student is on "school time."

So what is the middle ground?

Have all students fill out a form that lists the people who they allow to film them. Mom, dad, Uncle Ted, the Jones from down the street, you get the idea. The school administrator has a file of these people somewhere.

If Joe Creepy shows up and starts filming, but he is not on anyone's filming list, then slap the cuffs on him.

 

This guy sounds like a creep.

There is a big jump from creep to pornographer though...

 

All of this is reminiscent of a guy named Jim Renick, a former TV news reporter in Scranton. He faked a media credential for himself with a different name and a fake mustache, and was busted taking photos at a high school swimming meet. The investigation found his home computer loaded with child porn, and if he's not still in jail he oughta be.

I'd say he cleared that big jump easily.

 

Depends. Is the three-year-old wearing hair extensions, makeup and making suggestive hip movements?

Because that's the norm for 6-7 year-old competitive cheerleaders.