Free-Range Kids

France Won't Let Parents Post Pictures of Kids: Predators Might See Them

Child rapists don't often browse Facebook for potential victims.

|

Child photo
Dreamstime

The French have just done something seemingly impossible: They have become more hysterical about sex than les Americains. 

Police there are exhorting parents not to post picture of their children online. Why? Well, unflattering photos could embarrass them when they get a little older, of course. But the police also warn that somehow these images could attract sexual predators. As The Verge reports

"Protect your children!" France's national gendarmerie wrote in a Facebook post last month, warning of the recent "Motherhood Challenge" viral campaign that encouraged users to post photos of themselves with their kids. "You can all be proud moms and dads to your magnificent children, but be careful," the post continues. "We remind you that posting photos of your kids to Facebook is not without danger!" A regional branch of the gendarmerie went even further, imploring parents in all-caps to "STOP" the practice altogether. 

"PARENTS ARE CHARGED WITH PROTECTING THE IMAGE OF THEIR CHILDREN." 

How likely is it that predators are actually perusing Facebook, thanking heaven for little girls (or boys), and eagerly planning to pounce on the very cutest ones? 

Not too likely, says David Finkelhor, head of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. "We look at a lot of cases of crimes against children that involve some internet component, and I can't think of a case we've run across that uses that scenario," he told me. 

So what are the French police getting wrong? Says Finkelhor: "The point I've made is that child molesters are not using the internet like an L.L. Bean Catalog, where they leaf through the pages and then say, 'That's a good one!' That's not a high yield strategy." 

In an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro, French internet law expert Éric Delcroix said it's likely that baby photos published today could lead to lawsuits years from now. Under French privacy law, anyone convicted of publishing and distributing images of another person without their consent can face up to one year in prison and a fine of €45,000. [That's almost $50,000.] That would apply to parents publishing images of their kids, as well. Viviane Gelles, an attorney specializing in internet law, tells the newspaper that French law makes clear that "parents are charged with protecting the image of their children." 

So even though Americans seem obsessed with predator panic, at least we haven't passed a law forbidding parents from posting pictures of their sweet little, how you say? jailbait.  

NEXT: Ted Cruz on Illegals: "Yes, We Should Deport Them...Of Course You Would, That's What ICE Exists For"

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can’t we just ban everything and be done with it?

    1. Patience serf, we’re working on it.

      /your betters

    2. Those obtuse, obstructionist rednecks with their guns and their Bibles stand in the way of such rapid progress. Were it so easy to achieve Utopia, we would have brought unto you its bounty long ago.

      /Stalin, Satan, Bernie.

    3. This would all be so simple if you people could just get on board with

      Brian’s All Encompassing Law for Everything.

      It’s just one law:

      “A person is guilty of being an asshole if any person, before a jury of their peers, is unanimously found, by that jury, to be an asshole.

      The penalty for being an asshole is a fine of $0 to $100 zillion dollars, and/or imprisonment for anywhere between 0 days and 999 years, followed by an optional execution, as determined by the jury.”

      Done.

      God, you people make it so hard.

  2. I for one, would like to hear from OMWC.

    1. Here I am, where’s your little girl?

      1. I don’t own any, but I was curious about how much a tool is FB in the world of predatory pedophilia?

        1. Old Man.

          He doesn’t know how to use the internet; he does it the old fashioned way.

            1. My stepdaughter is past her use-by date.

              1. Then get her to teach you the interwebz. Do I have to think of everything?

                1. Conversation, sitting on a bench at the playground:

                  Woman: “Which one is yours?”
                  Me: “I haven’t chosen yet.”

                    1. Unintentional humor is the best kind.

  3. But they COULD!

  4. What if intrepid French parents post a photo of their cute tykes engaged in drawing Mohammed cartoons? Will the GJS (French SJWs) have their heads explode?

    1. How would you know it is GJS?

      Squints accusingly.

    2. Does the “G” stand for Gallic?

  5. “In an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro, French internet law expert ?ric Delcroix said it’s likely that baby photos published today could lead to lawsuits years from now. Under French privacy law, anyone convicted of publishing and distributing images of another person without their consent can face up to one year in prison and a fine of ?45,000.”

    So if I take a picture at a party and post it on Facebook, do I have to get permission from every person in the background to make sure I don’t fall afoul of this ridiculous privacy law?

    1. So if I take a picture at a party and post it on Facebook, do I have to get permission from every person in the background to make sure I don’t fall afoul of this ridiculous privacy law?

      Don’t you have to ask permission if the photo itself is over a certain age already? This is Europe, they have the “right to be forgotten” already.

    2. They seem to be suggesting that if Mom Doe posts a picture of her kid, that kid will grow up and sue Facebook years down the line for distributing a picture without their consent. That…that can’t possibly be right, can it?

      1. One soccer match with TV coverage…that’s a lot of lawsuits.

    3. Under French privacy law, anyone convicted of publishing and distributing images of another person without their consent can face up to one year in prison and a fine of ?45,000.”

      Of course, parents have the authority to consent on behalf of their children, so this strikes me as fearmongering.

      1. Who knows? It’s France-town.

  6. “Who are you to resist it, huh? My children need wine!”

  7. How likely is it that predators are actually perusing Facebook, thanking heaven for little girls (or boys), and eagerly planning to pounce on the very cutest ones?

    I plead the Fifth.

    1. People are so lazy these days.

      Do you even own a van?

      1. I am offended by your implications here.

        My van. Now fuck off, Playa.

        1. Upping your age limit, OMWC?

        2. So many windows to see inside…but that lets them see outside. Eeew.

    2. I would plead the Filth.

    1. Girls that have just become teenagers often post photographs of themselves half-naked on Facebook anyway. They don’t need help from their parents getting exposure online.

      1. Ones that go to Syria with ISIS boyfriends usually disappear from internet entirely…so, problem solved?

  8. Is Nancy Reagan still dead?

    1. They resurrected her with hash oil.

      1. I don’t see any swastikas.

        1. The picture is too blurry to see LAPDs arm bands.

  9. France: everything you hate about nanny statism, progtardation, and leftwing smugness turned up to 11.

  10. …David Finkelhor, head of the Crimes Against Children Research Center…

    From approximately fourth grader on up, having that last name is crime against children.

  11. To be fair, this all may have to do with recent events in Calais.

    1. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that any child rape going on there has nothing to do with whether or not pictures were available on the internet.

      1. Zeb, you’re clearly not terrified of everything enough…yet comrade.

  12. “The point I’ve made is that child molesters are not using the internet like an L.L. Bean Catalog, where they leaf through the pages and then say, ‘That’s a good one!’ That’s not a high yield strategy.”

    So what would be a “high yield strategy?” Asking for OMWC…

    Also, do the French have the internet now, or are they still stuck with Minitel?

  13. David Finkelhor, head of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.

    Sounds like he might be one of those Free Staters

  14. If you really want to protect your kids, stop sending them to school.

  15. A thousand apologies, people, but this subject is 0.000001% related to a huge pet peeve of mine. If anyone can shed light on the subject and/or let me know something I’m unaware of, please let me know.

    People drive cars all over, tens of thousand of miles a year, tens of thousands of people see the license plates on these cars, and when the cars are parked in their driveways, a stranger can even connect a particular car, license plate, and address. Hell, thanks to the websites of county property appraisers, a stranger can even determine the owner of the house/car/license plate. YET………….some people, when they put cars up for sale on autotrader or craigslist, obscure the license plates. WHY? WHY? WHY!?!?

    Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

    1. They don’t realize how much information about them is already out there?

    2. This reminds of a Japanese porn video I saw a few years back. We have one woman stick a bunch of live eels up another woman’s ass. Then that woman shits out all the eels and the other woman grabs one of the eels and eats it. YET… like all Japanese porn the genitals of the women are censored. I mean you have no problem showing a woman eating a live eel that’s coming out of another woman’s ass BUT You can’t show the genitals. WHY? WHY? WHY!?!?

      Sorry for the double interruption. Carry on.

      1. That’s a pretty standard meal preparation method there. You don’t ask why they allow the pizza man in my “I don’t have money for the pizza” movies, do you?

      2. That is totally gross.

        1. I didn’t say it was deep dish, oh you meant the eel thing.

      3. If you are perplexed by that, don’t visit an actual video store in Japan. They have a section for adult movies (that isn’t behind a curtain or anything) covered with DVD boxes that feature young ladies with cum all over their faces. But like you said, you get it home and all the pubic hair is pixelated out.

        No idea why the censors in Japan are so worked up. Regular people there seem way less uptight about sex in general than here in the US.

      4. Oh, FFS.

        *starts drinking heavily to get this out of his long term memory*

        1. Good luck. Warning: as the Eagles sang, some drink to REMEMBER, some drink to forget……

    3. Intentions. The state’s pure intentions shield that info from being used by perverts. Now, privately-managed information is another thing.

    4. Those cars were used in the commission of a felony?

    5. Reminds me of the bizarre blurring in the pix from the Google camera car. Must follow some recognition algorithm.

  16. The first time my kid got off the school bus, I took a picture to send to her grandparents. The next day the bus driver discretely informed my wife that that pic better not make it onto social media, because if it did, and it had any young faces on it other than my daughter’s, that I could end up in some very serious shit. So that derp is already here in the Land of the Free.

    1. Response: “I always take my legal advice from bus drivers.”

      1. I mean, its not like they’re giving you diet tips.

      2. Since he wrote “discretely informed” I’m assuming the SBD was trying to do sarc a favor and had probably become involved in some shitstorm over a similar incident.

        1. That was my thought.

      3. Response: “I always take my legal advice from bus drivers.”

        Read: “Just shut the fuck up and drive my brats to school, OK?”

    2. Tried to send some pictures of my kids to their grandfather, who is a guest of the Florida Department of Corrections for white collar crime. One had my two year old in a pair of pants and sunglasses with no shirt and the whole letter got returned for, according to the form, sexually suggestive nudity.
      Two things:
      1) Why are they employing perverts as prison censors?
      2) Assuming that really does it for the kiddie porn aficionados, why did they deprive my father-in-law of valuable prison currency?

      1. I assume there is a stupid rulebook which says no nudity, even partial. Remember that their mission is to make life as difficult as possible for the prisoners. This is the state at its worst.

        1. Well, it’s interesting because the form specifically says sexually suggestive. What’s sexually suggestive about a male two year old with no shirt on? Do they strip the ads out of the paper when they feature kids in swimsuits?

          1. IDK, but I wouldn’t put it past them. Remember, these are the people who were too dumb to be cops.

      2. “who is a guest of the Florida Department of Corrections for white collar crime.”

        That’s fucking awesome.

        Street cred.

        1. My dad was a guest of the BOP when I was a kid. I don’t think awesome ever crossed my mind.

        2. Yes Brett, go on please.

      3. who is a guest of the Florida Department of Corrections for white collar crime

        Got in too deep with the Cubanos, eh? If Archer Vice has taught me one thing…

        1. Nope. Just simple theft from his employer. And, you know, ruining my mother-in-law’s life by having all their assets consumed by lawyers and restitution whle he lied to her and manipulated their finances for a decade and begged and pleaded not to get divorced because they “couldn’t afford it” when what he really meant was that he couldn’t survive discovery. Never trust your spouse to manage the finances without joint oversight.

          1. That is a damn shame about your mother in law. I hope to hell that I never run afoul of the law. Despite your particular case, prisoners and people being prosecuted (wrongly) don’t exactly have a big lobby group pulling for them. I know someone in the system (in Fla), and it’s just one darn thing after another.

    3. Did he also try to boss your kids around and prevent them from hanging their heads and arms out the windows?

      When my kids were small they got to ride the bus to kindergarten and they would start the year at school with rules for bus safety. We were supposed to quiz them about it at home. I would always tell them that their answers were wrong because everyone knows that the first rule is to get your arms and head out of the window so you could make an easy escape if there was a crash. My kids would freak out at my answer and go on for minutes about how dangerous that was.

  17. Erase the public spaces of itty-bitty. Make the gather-rotundas soulless and morbid. Scrub them clean from the chirps and dimples, peasants.

  18. Seems a bit hyperbolic.

    “France WON’T Let Parents Post Pictures of Kids”

    “Police there are EXHORTING parents not to post picture of their children online.”

    Forbidding something and strong encouragement to not do something are not the same thing.

    1. Agreed. But they would like to forbid it I’m sure. It always starts out as a nice suggestion.

    2. I’m not sure how robust the French protections of FoS are. Even in the US where your throretical protections are great, we see that the practical protections are much fewer.

  19. Can we just create a ‘pants shitting’ award of some sort to hand out to the top pants shitting country each year? I mean, the contestants all seem really serious about winning this thing.

    1. +1 Pants Industry approval

  20. Angry feminists (but I repeat myself) poured urine on Lauren Southern.

    “Southern told Breitbart Tech, “I could go in and report it to the police. However I honestly don’t know if I want to waste their time. I just had a freezing and soaking wet walk home and had to take a shower. I didn’t die. The police have better things to do with their time.””

    I think I’m in love.

    1. Whore. Why, just last Friday I had a nice proggie media chick picked out for you and you said it was too soon.

    2. Careful, Irish, you’re vulnerable right now. You’re going to fall for any sexy, courageous truth-teller who truth-tells. But you’ll end up missing the insanity which only an SJW can bring to your life.

      “”a group of SJW’s and feminist gathered outside the Railway Club in Vancouver where a man named Augustus Invictus was scheduled to give a talk. He was stopped at the Canadian border and refused entry on the grounds that he “has no legitimate reason to enter the country and will just cause trouble.””

      This Invictus guy, his name seems somehow familiar.

      1. He’s a libertarian candidate for senate in Florida who is also completely bugfuck insane. He said he drank goat blood and also kept an LSD journal where he documented his trips and mentioned one time he fantasized about raping a woman while on LSD.

        He published these journals, for some reason.

        1. And this is worse than Trump how?

      2. “a group of SJW’s and feminist gathered outside the Railway Club in Vancouver where a man named Augustus Invictus was scheduled to give a talk. He was stopped at the Canadian border and refused entry on the grounds that he “has no legitimate reason to enter the country and will just cause trouble.”

        And these people are worried about Trump?

    3. her voice is grating I’m sorry.

    4. The protester just had a bottle of urine ready?

      1. Doesn’t everyone?

    5. But, srsly, slutty-boy, thanks for that.

      “The feminist girls all were laughing at me and giving me the middle finger on the street, guys were screaming at me that ‘maybe that washed the scum off you’,” she added. “Despite their professed feminism, they don’t care about women if they have the wrong opinions. And despite their professed concern for ‘violence against women,’ they don’t care if women who disagree with them are physically attacked.”

      While it would certainly be justified to charge them with assault and force the urine provider to undergo medical testing, that would play into the whininess. I admire her for taking the piss and moving on.

      1. I’m watching a documentary on white sharks right now, so I’m not going to read the article, but what kind of ass whipping did she give the piss thrower?

        1. None, and wisely so. Because the SJW’s would have charged her with assault and the state would have come down on the side of the SJW’s. I’m unclear on the events leading up to this but it appears she was substituting for someone that Canada wouldn’t let into the country because of his views.

          And I’m really torn about this. On one hand we are better than the screeching hysterics of the left and unless the attacks are actually damaging or potentially so (ie shooting at someone but missing) we claim the moral high ground by shrugging them off. That will only embolden the left to more and better attacks and then they will kill someone.

          OTOH, we don’t want to end up like the wimpy leftists with their safe spaces and trigger warnings and other childish BS.

          1. You’re a better person than me. I would have hit them, hard.

            1. You don’t want to make martyrs. And even if you were defending yourself the proggies would see you as the aggressor. Remember that they really, really believe that hate speech is exactly the same as a punch in the face, if not worse.

            2. Well, it was a lone woman against a mixed group of men and women.

    6. Racist, and into water sports?

      Jesus Christ.

      1. I am a man of infinite perversions.

  21. Can someone please explain to me why so many people turn into pants-shitting statists when they have kids? Every time a topic of conversation comes up that has anything even tangentially related to children and I ask “why?” the answer is inevitably “when you have children you’ll understand.” Understand what? Suddenly because I helped spawn something I understand why it’s okay to give up a little bit of freedom for a false sense of security? I can understand doing things to protect my kids, but I don’t understand why so many people think it gives them the right to start telling others how to live.

    Sorry for the rant.

    1. I don’t think it turns people into statists since some of the most statist people in the country are progressive, upper-middle class leftists who have very, very few children.

      It just gives people who are already statists an extra tool they use to push things they already wanted.

      1. It doesn’t say if *les flics* have any kids, just that they’re browbeating parents about being photographed in public with their children.

    2. Come to think of it, I may have asked this before here.

      *stalks off*

    3. when you have children you will understand.

      1. *smashes computer*

        1. No. Smash your testicles. Problem solved.

          1. True. It’s for the children.

    4. Can someone please explain to me why so many people turn into pants-shitting statists when they have kids?

      You just noticed this?

      The following is my favorite conversation with people who are ‘married with children’.

      Me: I think cannabis should be legal.

      Them: Well, I don’t think it’s worse than alcohol… but … I have children.

      Just replace ‘I think cannabis should be illegal’ with a thousand other things and get same response. IOW, them having children somehow trumps all of your rights.

      1. cannabis should be illegal legal.

      2. No, I just now found a forum where it’s acceptable to vent this kind of frustration.

        1. I have 2 kids, both grown and moved out now, praise da lawd. But I was never like that. I guess libertarians have some sort of natural immunity to the ‘chillins brain rot’.

          1. The missus and I have discussed not having kids. We’re of a similar mindset and we both acknowledge there’s a strong possibility that CPS will take them from us and we’ll be in jail, most likely because one of us had an uncontrollable outburst at the parent-teacher conferences. We figure it’s probably safer to just avoid children all together.

            1. I wouldn’t do it today. My youngest is 25. Things were different back then. No way in hell I would consider having kids in this country today. If I wanted kids, I’d have to move to some 3rd world country were people are generally poorer but not quite as insane as they are here.

          2. Not like that?

            Hell, I took mine to Libertarian meetings.

      3. My personal favorite is ‘I bet you wouldn’t want your daughter doing prostitution, so how can you support legalizing it?’

    5. I’ve only become more libertarian since we had a daughter years ago.

      1. 10 years ago. The little pain in the ass was dicking around with the number lock key before.

    1. I mean, who looks at Facebook and says, “wow, this could provide me, I mean a criminal, with a huge stash of porn!”

  22. That’s what they get for letting Roman Polanksi into the country.

  23. I suppose you could argue that these kids have a right to their own image and the parents have a duty to safeguard that right – think of child actors for example who can make money selling their image. And what of embarrassing photos – can you sue your parents somewhere down the road when you ask that girl in AmGov 101 out to the freshman mixer and she turns you down because she found that 15-year Facebook post your mom made of you giving the dog a prostate exam?

    1. Some of the shit my friends with kids post on social media is ridiculous. I would have hated to have been 16 with those kinds of pictures easily accessible to any of my peers. It’s definitely social-signaling…”look at me being a parent! I’m such a grown-up now!”

      Attention whores.

  24. Can’t you just set your profile so only your friends can see your posts?
    And then make sure your friends list doesn’t include pedophiles?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.