Sex-Offender Speech

1st Amendment for all


Are registered sex offenders allowed to photograph children in public? Yes, according to a district appeals court in Wisconsin, which recently affirmed that sex offenders "have the same First Amendment rights as any other" American. The case involves Christopher J. Oatman, 44, who was convicted in 2002 of child sexual assault.

In 2011, Oatman's probation officer found photos on his cellphone of neighborhood children playing outside. Though none of the photos involved nudity, Oatman was in violation of a Wisconsin law saying sex offenders cannot "intentionally capture a representation of any minor" without written consent from the minor's parent or guardian. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and 16 additional years of extended supervision.

But last September, the appeals court not only reversed Oatman's conviction but declared the law he was charged under unconstitutional. In its ruling, the court noted that "the State undeniably has a compelling interest in protecting children" but suggested that this law wasn't necessary toward that aim.

Kids "are not harmed by nonobscene, nonpornographic photographs taken in public places," the court stated. "While we may dislike the fact that someone might have objectionable thoughts when viewing ordinary images of children, the State is constitutionally prohibited from precluding citizens from creating such images."

NEXT: New York City Businesses and Employers Must Now Recognize All Gender Identities, Differentiate Based on None

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The court ruled correctly as barring such activity would be equal to thought control. The images in and of themselves are not illegal. As stated the kids are playing and oblivious to the fact they've been photographed. As sick and perverted as it is, there is no law against what a pedophile thinks so long as he or she does not go out and act on those thoughts/fantasies/desires. Besides, those pictures could be evidence against the offender if they act out. The pictures, when taken in context with the actions of said offender, would prove a previous interest in children and therefore an intent to act when given the chance. Most sex offenders who target little children are on supervision that bars interaction with minors, so if they snap the picture from a distance without interacting with the kids, they've broken no law.

    I'd also say a line into criminality has been crossed if the pictures are retouched to make the children appear as if they were photographed in the nude, particularly frontal nudity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.