(ABP) — When churches decide whether to publish the names and photos of children, a growing number cite protection as their guiding principle — protecting the children from predators and the church from legal action.
Churches probably have little cause for being overly concerned about breaking any laws or inviting lawsuits, according to attorneys with expertise in church legal affairs. Nonetheless, churches increasingly are exercising caution to guard children from potential abuse.
“Good risk management” may demand a higher standard than what the law requires, said Lance Travis, attorney with the Buford and Ryburn firm in Dallas.
Janice Haywood, a children's specialist with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, said that convention has been recommending for some time that churches not post pictures or names of children in any public place — even outside classrooms — for safety and security.
“Churches must be very careful to protect the identity of the children in their care,” Haywood said, echoing the concerns of many ministers and lawyers. “In addition to a security system that ensures children are released only to authorized persons, churches must not 'advertise' the identity of the children to a public that may perceive churches as easy marks for kidnapping.”
While fears of child abuse and a heightened concern for privacy are fueling caution among churches, the legal exposure for congregations is not acute, several attorneys said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individuals give up certain rights by joining a church, explained Vivian Clingenpeel, an attorney from Richmond, Va. “On the basis of joining the church,” she said, “you are presumed to agree to certain things,” including the association of your name with the church.
As long as a church does not portray anyone in a false light, make money by using their likeness without their approval, or violate their “reasonable expectation of privacy,” the church is free to use names and photos of people attending church-sponsored activities, regardless of their age, said Travis, the Dallas attorney.
Both Travis and Clingenpeel said lawsuits based on the invasion of privacy are rarely successful. But, Clingenpeel added, how much privacy can be reasonably expected is a fluid factor in the law.
“It's hard to make a blanket statement because it would vary from state to state,” said Clingenpeel, who teaches a class on churches and the law at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. “That is a developing area of the law where we don't really understand all the rights and responsibilities.”
In Texas, no legal statute prohibits churches from publishing photos of children and youth participating in church-related functions, said Travis. “The church is considered an open, public place,” he said, pointing out that the right to privacy only extends to places such as restrooms and changing rooms, where a person reasonably could expect freedom from intrusion.
However, the attorneys said the Internet is forcing churches to rethink some practices.
While publications mailed to church members or videos shown at church-related functions pose little risk, publishing children's photos on a church website falls into a gray area with few guiding legal precedents. “The Internet would be closer to the line,” Travis said.
“What is your expectation of privacy?” asked Clingenpeel. “I would draw a line between what you put in the church newsletter and what you put on the Web, because [on a church website] you are basically telling the whole world.” Something as basic as sharing prayer requests about ill church members becomes a different issue on the Internet, she said.
“I would be very leery about what we put on the Web,” she concluded. While the law protects what congregants say about each other in the context of a church meeting, she said, “the web is not a closed-circuit, within-the-family discussion.”
Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas, makes at least some distinctions between media directed internally to its own members and externally to the general public.
Paula Ayers, who edits the church's magazine, does not publish the addresses and photos of new members. But she may use photos of children occasionally and identify them by first name, if she knows the family would not object.
But the church's website has hard-and-fast rules against displaying anything that a predator could use to prey upon a child, said Kelly Vance, website administrator. “When it comes to the website, there are so many predators out there, we have to be more stringent,” she said.
On rare occasions when the website uses photos of children's choirs or youth mission trips, the church requires parents to sign a release form. But even then, only the images are displayed. “I never use names,” Vance said. “If the children are wearing name badges, I blur out the names.”
At the Heights Baptist Church in Richardson, Texas, parents are required to complete a form either granting or denying the church permission to use photos of their children in newsletters, slide shows or on the church's website. The same form is used by all church programs involving children under age 12, from weekday education to children's choirs and Sunday school.
“We don't use any names of children at all,” said Karen Fowler, who directed the church's child-development center for 19 years. “We don't want to let anybody identify a child by name.”
Seeking permission before publishing names and photos is becoming the pattern among churches, said Clingenpeel, the Richmond attorney. The practice makes sense, she said, given that people are increasingly sensitive to — and annoyed by — intrusions into their privacy.
While there are good reasons for caution, she said, proving a church legally liable for publishing the identity of a child is very unlikely.
A more urgent legal concern, she said, is protecting children while they are under the care of the church — participating in church-sponsored activities like trips and child-care ministries — “because the responsibility is much more direct.”
-30-