For Ringwood homemaker Amy Conklin, something needed to be done.

Last summer, a 63-year-old man was seen taping children at a local swim meet. Police say when confronted he told them he found girls 8 to 10 sexy.

But the authorities could only charge the man, who they say had a history of similar run-ins with the police, with trespassing and disorderly conduct — and those charges were later dropped.

"Our town is in an uproar," said Conklin, who was on vacation when the incident occurred. Otherwise, she said, her own children would have been there. "He is free to do as he wishes because these innocent 8-year-old girls were not naked when he videotaped them."

Such legislation, which is being considered by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would step into a constitutional minefield.

The bill would ban photographs or recordings of children when "a reasonable parent or guardian would not expect his child to be the subject of such reproduction."

While the committee discussed the measure, it took no action.

The legal director of the New Jersey chapter of the ACLU, Ed Barocas, contended that language was "overly broad and far too vague."

"If you take a picture of your child at the Jersey Shore building a sand castle, and there were other children in the background, would that violate the law?" he asked.

Even the sponsor of the measure, Assemblyman David Russo (R-Bergen), acknowledged that the legislation would need to be amended to pass constitutional muster.

He said that as technology improves, more and more people are likely to wind up on camera unwillingly.

"We know this sort of smacks of the opposite of the way society is going," Russo said, "but this is why we did this and we think it’s an issue that should be discussed."

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:



• N.J. Assembly panel considers bill outlawing photographing children without parental consent

Lauren James-Weir, an attorney for the New Jersey Press Association, said such a measure would make it nearly impossible for news outlets to publish photographs or film.

"If a newspaper covers a high school track meet, before it could take any photographs it would have to verify the ages of all the persons who may be captured in those photographs," she said. "If any of these people are under 18, a photograph by the newspaper would be in violation of (the bill) unless the newspaper either obtains consent from all these parents or was confident that a reasonable parent would expect his or her child to be photographed."

Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) said the bill would stand a better chance of being found constitutional if it were changed so that photographing only the genital region of minors, even if fully clothed, would be outlawed.

"If we narrow the scope of what we’re talking about and perhaps put in something that really speaks to the predatory nature we’re speaking of, our statute would be more likely to be held constitutional," she said.