Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People do have the right to take their screaming kids into restaurants. Restaurant management, however, has a superseding right to kick those people out if they deem it to be inappropriate.
That's an example of why I don't think this is a question of "rights." We all have all kinds of "rights." That doesn't mean we should exercise them in every situation.
Sure. I agree with that. Except the "absurd" part. Why is it less absurd to insist upon keeping a video up of someone else's kid? No one has really explained that. "No. I really like watching that video of your kid" or "my friends all think I'm super-hilarious because of that video I posted of your 7 year old" or even "no, I like it" ???
In polite society, however, the person with a more vested interest should have more say in the matter. Regarding children, that would be the parent. A parent shouldn't have to explain to a random neighbor why they'd like the video removed--what if they is a custody battle? The parent should have explain all that to the dude, but y'all don't think he had any responsibility to say WHY that video means so much to him? That's weird. Who wouldn't just honor a parent's request??
I'm really trying to understand this opposing point of view.
The opposing point is that parents who throw a fit over something that innocent are being irrational and making a fuss over nothing, and spoiling beautiful moments for other people in doing so. The opposing view is that parents do not have the right to dictate that only they can issue or create "official" photos/videos of their children, they do not own their children that absolutely; schools with their activities, friends at sleepovers, others at birthday parties etc, sooner or later an image/clip will result and big deal. The opposing view is that parents need to stop being so bizarre in their thinking that somehow that photo/video is going to cause little men in UFOs to come down from the sky and zap their children into stardust, because it really isn't a risk.
The opposing view is that this is all much ado about nothing, and it spoils something which is in fact nice and sweet, and irrational paranoia should never be allowed to do such a thing.
Sure. I agree with that. Except the "absurd" part. Why is it less absurd to insist upon keeping a video up of someone else's kid? No one has really explained that. "No. I really like watching that video of your kid" or "my friends all think I'm super-hilarious because of that video I posted of your 7 year old" or even "no, I like it" ???
In polite society, however, the person with a more vested interest should have more say in the matter. Regarding children, that would be the parent. A parent shouldn't have to explain to a random neighbor why they'd like the video removed--what if they is a custody battle? The parent should have explain all that to the dude, but y'all don't think he had any responsibility to say WHY that video means so much to him? That's weird. Who wouldn't just honor a parent's request??
I'm really trying to understand this opposing point of view.
The opposing point is that parents who throw a fit over something that innocent are being irrational and making a fuss over nothing, and spoiling beautiful moments for other people in doing so. The opposing view is that parents do not have the right to dictate that only they can issue or create "official" photos/videos of their children, they do not own their children that absolutely; schools with their activities, friends at sleepovers, others at birthday parties etc, sooner or later an image/clip will result and big deal. The opposing view is that parents need to stop being so bizarre in their thinking that somehow that photo/video is going to cause little men in UFOs to come down from the sky and zap their children into stardust, because it really isn't a risk.
The opposing view is that this is all much ado about nothing, and it spoils something which is in fact nice and sweet, and irrational paranoia should never be allowed to do such a thing.
Hmm...I don't think I've read anyone saying any of that...
And I also haven't read anything "nice and sweet" from anyone who insists on filming and posting videos of unrelated children. I must be missing the "nice and sweet" part of using someone else's child in the staring role of your Facebook feed...
So the opposing view is a "slippery slope" argument? That removing a video of a neighbors kid will lead to being asked to remove all photos from school and activities? That's the concern?
Hmm...I don't think I've read anyone saying any of that...
And I also haven't read anything "nice and sweet" from anyone who insists on filming and posting videos of unrelated children. I must be missing the "nice and sweet" part of using someone else's child in the staring role of your Facebook feed...
So the opposing view is a "slippery slope" argument? That removing a video of a neighbors kid will lead to being asked to remove all photos from school and activities? That's the concern?
Yes, it is. It also means if you're a guy at a public place with a nice camera they assume pervert. That's discrimination. It also means paranoid Fruit Loops spoil it for everyone else and get on people's nerves in settings like school activities and birthday parties.
No one is "using' anyone, that's just ridiculous. Next thing you know, I'm going to hear I'm "using" Mother Earth taking the landscape shots I also take. Oh please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glass_of_merlot
But but but....it's legal............
It sure is, and it's harmless. As the one poster said, get over it. Stop making an issue out of nothing. The last thing this world needs is more paranoia and fake "victims."
Sure. I agree with that. Except the "absurd" part. Why is it less absurd to insist upon keeping a video up of someone else's kid? No one has really explained that. "No. I really like watching that video of your kid" or "my friends all think I'm super-hilarious because of that video I posted of your 7 year old" or even "no, I like it" ???
In polite society, however, the person with a more vested interest should have more say in the matter. Regarding children, that would be the parent. A parent shouldn't have to explain to a random neighbor why they'd like the video removed--what if they is a custody battle? The parent should have explain all that to the dude, but y'all don't think he had any responsibility to say WHY that video means so much to him? That's weird. Who wouldn't just honor a parent's request??
I'm really trying to understand this opposing point of view.
Basically, the neighbor "should" have gotten the parent's permission, if not to film the child, to post the video on social media. The neighbor "should" respect the parent's wishes if said parent wants the video removed. But the neighbor does NOT HAVE to if he chooses not to. He didn't do anything illegal or inappropriate. Rude, maybe. Especially if he flat out refused to take it down if asked. But not everybody is a nice guy, not everybody is going to care about that parent's discomfort, and there lies the risk in sending your kids ANYWHERE if you don't want them filmed or photographed.
In the OP's situation, I would have been put off myself that he exclusively filmed my child, not his kid with mine, but MY kid, then put my kid on HIS Facebook. But unless the intent was to belittle or degrade or endanger my child somehow, I wouldn't press the issue. More than likely, his Facebook friends may or may not have even watched it, then scrolled on by without sharing it or probably even commenting. The premise of the video seemed innocent and harmless. I think when people say "it wasn't that big a deal" it's because the neighbor didn't appear to be inappropriate or mean any harm by what he did. If the OP's child was swimming at the neighbors house, and the neighbor shared photos of the OP's child posing in a bathing suit, the OP should absolutely ask him to remove them. Even then he doesn't have to, but that's a situation I would pursue and hope he does. But a kid in a baseball hat? Not worth the trouble.
There was another thread a while ago here, about a mom who didn't want another parent to film her child during their dance class, even though the mother filming was clearly filming her OWN chld, and the poster's child just happened to be in the shot. That's the kind of situation where people go overboard. You can't ask that your child never be photographed. It's not possible, unless they stay indoors at all times. You can't control what other people put on their social media either. You can ask, and hope they comply, but they are under no obligation to do so.
Refusing to remove the video is suspect. The Mom needs to report the video to FB, they will take it down. And my children would not be alone with this neighbor again.
All you people scoffing at the mothers concerns, perhaps you are ok with some guy exploiting your child, and without asking posting your child online, and refusing to take it down....others are not. Gotta wonder about a guy like that.
I think it's so odd how people keep harping back to "rights" and what's "legal" when that doesn't seem to really be an issue here.
Most threads in this parenting subforum don't jump to "rights" and "it's legal!!" as the default response Any ideas why this thread is different??
Take for example all the numerous threads about kids misbehaving in restaurants. Many of these same posters blast parents for taking children out to eat. And they lament the state of parenting "these days" and yet others don't respond with "well, that's modern times so get used to it!" Or "I have the RIGHT to take my screaming children anywhere I want!!" Or "it's LEGAL to go to restaurants with misbehaving children so no one should have a problem with it!!"
This is pretty basic: legal doesn't equal "the right thing to do"!!
Except you're wrong.
Parents have the right to take children to any PUBLIC area and let their children scream; parks, playgrounds, etc. But restaurants are not public property, they are owned by an individual or corporation. And those owners have the RIGHT to determine what is or is not allowed in them. Neither the parent of the screaming child nor the customers wanting silence have any rights except those determined by the owner of the establishment.
Screaming children is not a protected right via the constitution but photography and by extension videography are in general protected under the first amendment. There is endless amounts of case law supporting the right to photography in public (and some small amount that limits it, but not that would apply here) and none about the rights of parents to have their children scream on private property.
As for morality, you are welcome to argue that all you like. It is though, a equally valid argument that it is immoral to attempt to restrict what others (and clearly the majority here btw) think is perfectly acceptable. It is also equally valid to point out the hypocrisy of a parent who has already stated she shares her daughters image on FB complain about the same sharing of that image in a 10 second video with other people in it.
Refusing to remove the video is suspect. The Mom needs to report the video to FB, they will take it down. And my children would not be alone with this neighbor again.
All you people scoffing at the mothers concerns, perhaps you are ok with some guy exploiting your child, and without asking posting your child online, and refusing to take it down....others are not. Gotta wonder about a guy like that.
This is an example of unreasonable attitude.
The mother shares images of her daughter on facebook. The neighbor, a family friend, posts a video that the parents can see, taken outside where anyone can see it, of him joking about a sports team, and now we should be "wondering" about "exploiting" and basically assuming this man is a pedophile.
First, pedophiles do not post images of their victims or their intended victims for the parents to see. That would be counter productive. Second, use of the term "exploiting" is such an inflammatory work it is beyond the pale to use it for nothing more than a father interact with his kids and their friend. You are literally making claims that can ruin someone's life and encouraging the OP to do the same.
Finally, he didn't refuse anything. He was never asked to take it down, because the OP realized their was no harm in it. You might consider being more careful with the unwarranted labels you apply to people. You may find yourself on the receiving end of some of them at some point and not like it very much either.
Yes, it is. It also means if you're a guy at a public place with a nice camera they assume pervert. That's discrimination. It also means paranoid Fruit Loops spoil it for everyone else and get on people's nerves in settings like school activities and birthday parties.
No one is "using' anyone, that's just ridiculous. Next thing you know, I'm going to hear I'm "using" Mother Earth taking the landscape shots I also take. Oh please.
It sure is, and it's harmless. As the one poster said, get over it. Stop making an issue out of nothing. The last thing this world needs is more paranoia and fake "victims."
I agree that people often assume that a man with a nice camera, especially with a telephoto lens is possibly a pervert.
OTOH, what my husband does is try to make sure that he is only taking the photos of our children or grandchildren - he will crop out people in the background if possible. Now when he is taking photos or videos of a play or sporting event they are in that is not possible. But, he also doesn't post to social media. We share these pics with the appropriate relatives and friends via cd, dvd or email.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any ideas why this thread is different??
