Hey, there! Log in / Register
Nearly naked anti-gay activist arrested after taking photos of middle-school students
By adamg on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 8:12pm
OK, he wasn't en deshabille while taking the photos, but he stripped to his skivvies as he ran away from Andover police who asked him to knock it off, the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune reports.
Anti-gay loon Brian Camenker defended the guy, saying he mistook the middle school for a high school where the state Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgendered Youth was meeting later in the day and he wanted footage for a "documentary" he is shooting.
Via Queer Today.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Wow. So Camenker is playing
Wow. So Camenker is playing lawyer now? This is beautiful. These freaks are a gift that just keep on giving.
siiiiiigh
As parents watched, Olivio parked his car, got out, and began taking many pictures of the school and the students. Police received a flood of 911 calls from parents and soon the school called.
Right, because it's illegal to take photographs of schools and kids.
When police caught him, Olivio said he was taking pictures for a documentary and he would not elaborate on it," Hashem said. Hashem said police could not associate him with any media organization.
Right, because in America, we have PERMITS for those dangerous cameras! To produce a documentary, those require authorization...
This guy may be a complete nutjob and a jerk in an organization promoting hate, but that doesn't change the fact that we've got just a tad bit of hysteria and railroading going on here...
It may be Illegal, Brett
Many communities do have restrictions in place for photographing children on school property. When my kids have been in the paper or in PBS KIDS! spots, we have always had to sign a permission form. While the laws are largely reactive to the way that digital media can orbit the world quickly, they are also intended to prevent disruptions/distractions.
In any case, someone taking pictures of kids at a school should expect to be questioned. Why? Pervs and non-custodial parents for two. There are pedophiles who stalk children and photograph them repeatedly. The real risks are vastly overblown, of course, but they do exist. Also, schools don't want people coming around taking pictures for all of the usual "Clark Rockefeller" sorts of reasons. 911 calls are vast overkill, but these laws and policies of questioning randoms on school property are intnended to protect children far more than "I don't want them seeing that princesses can marry eachother!".
You can't even take pictures of kids for publication if you are in the school without express written consent of the parents. We sign a release form every year. Some parents have religious objections to photography, and I sure as hell wouldn't want my kids to show up in an ad for something I didn't give my permission for - like an anti-gay documentary or a McSame ad (or even for a candidate or product that I liked)!
My husband pissed off a bunch of his students by going on myspace and pointing out that it is a really bad idea to put your school name and other identifying info on your page. Why? Well, this was right after some incidents where pervs used kids pages to "go shopping" and harass and kidnap specific young teens as they left school.
I think the full-blown paranoia is overkill myself and don't really care if somebody takes pictures of my kid on the playground ... but people are concerned for much more validated reasons than you allow here. Keep in mind that digital pics of, say, a young girl hanging upside-down on the monkey bars and momentarily showing underwear when her skirt flipped would fetch cash in certain fetid areas of the internet. Consider as well that an abused parent who has left for a new place may not want to bring their child to school one day only to be confronted by their abuser because someone took a picture of their kid.
As a parent, I'm not sure what the "measured" reaction should be, but somebody random shooting pictures does and should raise alarm bells given history and that person should be expected to leave school property or explain themselves if asked to do so.
Many communities do have
Many communities do have restrictions in place for photographing children on school property.
Citation, please.
When my kids have been in the paper or in PBS KIDS! spots, we have always had to sign a permission form.
No shit, sherlock. That's called a talent release. Completely different- and a civil, not criminal, matter. If Wacko Mc. LosesClothesInPoliceChase makes a film and doesn't get a model release, you're free to sue him, but the cops can't do anything about it, because it's not a criminal matter.
Also, schools don't want people coming around taking pictures for all of the usual "Clark Rockefeller" sorts of reasons.
Too bad that our Constitution doesn't punish for what you *might* be. Or do you believe that your smart ass is safer because people can't take pictures of federal buildings without getting harassed by cops?
Funny how middle school is right where kids start to learn about that pesky, annoying Constitution gives rights to everyone, even those we don't like or who might harm us or live outside our borders.
How Convenient
Cherry pick much? We had to sign a "permission to photograph and publish photographs" form for our kids at the beginning of the school year.
I'd link the form, but our city has issues with this intertube concept in general (well, with competent departments in general, but I won't go there).
Schools also get to decide who comes onto school property, even public schools. You conveniently ignored and denied that, too. Simple enough to google a selection of them yourself.
If he wanted footage for a documentary (talent release time, by your own admission????) he could have either requested permission and allowed the footage to be anonymized (not showing faces, just backs, like a real documentary would) or taken his footage of the building at a time when nobody was there.
Sorry Brett, but parents have rights too.
Boston, too
We at least did the kidlet the courtesy of asking her if she would mind being photographed at school when she wins her Nobel Prize this year before signing the consent form.
To get to Brett's point about photographer rights: The guy was, it seems, in a public place, not inside the school. So yay First Amendment. But if you read the story, you'll notice the fun started when people asked him what he was doing and, instead of simply explaining (maybe because how do you simply explain "I'm shooting video of perverts with teh gay" or whatever), he began behaving "erratically." In fact, the police said they let him go at first - until he began running and stripping his clothes.
And he would have gotten away with it, too
if it weren't for those meddling kids!
Olivio is invisible when he's naked. The proof is that nobody's ever seen him that way.
learn to read
Cherry pick much? We had to sign a "permission to photograph and publish photographs" form for our kids at the beginning of the school year.
I didn't ask for what the school requires you to sign so that *they* can take and publish pictures of your kid.
I asked for proof that "some communities" have legislation, on the books, prohibiting members of the general public from taking pictures of kids who are on school property, which is what you claimed existed.
Sorry Brett, but parents have rights too.
And what rights would those be? Please be *specific*.
Learn to Read the Constitution
Or the case law surrounding it, at least.
Start with your citation of the part where it gives a photgrapher the right to take a picture of anybody, anywhere, anytime.
Then move on to the part where you get to strip down and run away when people ask what you are doing.
Sorry, but your adolescent fantasies of "I can do what ever I want when ever I want, even around minor children, just because I want to" isn't the text of the first amendment.
Citation
The school in Dorchester where I spend a lot of time requires parents to sign a release to photograph kids at all. They don't do any advertising or anything; the photos are only used to take pics of kids with their art project or at birthday celebrations and the pictures only get hung up at school and sent to parents. Parents/caregivers (or random strangers) aren't allowed to take pictures while on the playground or attending events, because they don't know who all has signed a photo release and it isn't their business to know.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
No "a"
There's no "a" in "Camenker".
Larry Davidson
Thanks for the spelling lesson
Duly noted and edited.
Those guys who stalk the
Those guys who stalk the commission are seriously insane individuals. Camenker stands outside the meetings and glares at one and all who go in, then sits in the back and makes grunting noises and takes pictures to post on his website to intimidate participants. I am not the least bit surprised that one of them finally lost it--but I don't get why he stripped to his underwear. My fear was and still is that one of them will pull a knife or try to kill someone. I think they are a very dangerous lot.
But don't take pictures of them
They are known to freak out when the camera is turned their way.
Hmmmm
What a wonderful idea!
My layperson understanding
My layperson understanding is that the case law is pretty clear that there are very few restrictions on photography in public places in the US (sensitive military installations being the only restriction that comes to mind at the moment).
There are more restrictions on *use* of the photos (e.g., commercial use without permission), but not on the taking of the photos in public where there would be no reasonable expectation of privacy.
That's not to say that just because it's legal that it's polite.
fabulous.
did his "documentary" require him getting naked???