TRENTON — A state Assembly panel this morning considered a bill that would make it a third degree crime to photograph or videotape a child without his or her parent's consent.

But the Assembly Judiciary Committee did not vote on the bill (A3297), and members acknowledged it may be overly broad and may not stand up to constitutional scrutiny if it’s not amended.

“We know this sort of smacks of the opposite of the way society is going, but this is why we did this and we think it’s an issue that should be discussed,” said Assemblyman David Russo (R-Bergen), a sponsor.

The bill was introduced after complaints this summer from Ringwood residents after a 63-year-old man was caught taping young girls watching a swim meet at a local lake. The man allegedly told police that he found girls ages 8 to 10 “sexy,” police told reporters at the time. He was charged with trespassing and petty disorderly conduct, but not a more serious crime.

The man had a history of run-ins with police in similar situations.

The bill would ban taking pictures or taping children in situations in which “a reasonable parent or guardian would not expect his child to be the subject of such reproduction.”

Lauren James Weir, an attorney for the New Jersey Press Association, said that would have a “chilling effect” on free speech.

“The bill also imposes a duty on a newspaper to verify the age of every person who is photographed or recorded, whether that person is the focus of the image or a person in the background,” she said.

In an email, New Jersey ACLU Executive Director Deborah Jacobs called the bill “ridiculous.”

Amy L. Conklin, a parent from Ridgewood who pushed for the bill, said the man caught taping the children should not be free.

“This man is a pervert, a sick individual, someone who could well be a pedophile,” said Conklin. “Our town is in an uproar… He is free to do as he wishes because these innocent 8 year old girls were not naked when he videotaped them,” she said.

Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) suggested changing the bill to make it more specific.

“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.