Thank you for your thoughtful post. As you point out, the wide wide internet has a number of characteristics (multi-jurisdictions, anonyminity (sp?), etc.) that provide both protection of privacy and problems for law enforcement in the various jurisdictions.
As to your point above, I find the line pretty clear in the case of the photographer. The line is the law, as writen and codified and enforceable. As soon as he breaks the law, haul his butt away. The trouble I have in this case is that he was doing something that some folks maybe thought should be against the law, but wasn't. If these people can convince a majority of their reps to pass such a law, and it passes Constitutional muster, so be it. If they can't muster the support of their reps, then the photog should not be ejected, arrested, asked to move along, or have any manner of "authority"bother him. Otherwise it's the gov't/society that is stepping over the line. I can't believe that people here can't see that line.
Not pointing at you, but I am continually surprised at the people who, on this supposedly conservative and law abiding web site, where we expouse the "rule of law" how many will quickly become a JBT to force their own views on others. In your case, you seem to be studying the issues, and I may assume that you are lobbying, educating, advocating or whatever to get laws passed to advance your cause of protection of children. Good on you. That's the way it is supposed to be done in our republic.
Take care,
Believe it.
A key test of temperature of these threads is to count the number of posts removed by the Admin Moderator in the initial page of fifty.
I believe this one had two. That would make it "medium rare"
A Representative Constitutional Republic is not for wimps. Only the strong need apply.
Best regards,