Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures

    A court has upheld the constitutional right of Texans to photograph strangers as an essential component of freedom of speech - even if those images should happen to be surreptitious “upskirt” pictures of women taken for the purposes of sexual gratification.

    Criticising an anti-“creepshot” law as a “paternalistic” intrusion on a person’s right to be aroused, the Texas court of criminal appeals struck down part of the state’s “improper photography or visual recording” statute which banned photographing, broadcasting or transmitting a visual image of another person without the other’s consent and with the intention to “arouse or gratify … sexual desire”.

    The case stemmed from the arrest of a man in his early 50s named Ronald Thompson who was stopped in 2011 at Sea World in San Antonio after parents reported him swimming with and taking pictures of children aged 3-11. The local district attorney’s office said that he tried to delete the photographs before his camera was seized and a police examination of it revealed 73 images of children in swimsuits “with most of the photographs targeting the children’s breast and buttocks areas”.

    Prosecuting lawyers argued that the constitutional right to free speech, which includes taking public photographs, should not be a factor because photography is essentially a technical recording process and that attempted lawbreakers should not be able to hide behind free-speech protections.

    Attorneys for Thompson said that the statute was “the stuff of Orwellian thought-crime” and that it did not distinguish “upskirt” or “peeping Tom” photography from “merely photographing a girl in a skirt walking down the street”, so in theory it could criminalise the likes of paparazzi journalists.

    The appeals judges appeared to agree, stating that although “upskirt” type-images are intolerable invasions of privacy, the wording of the law is too broad. Presiding judge Sharon Keller wrote in the court’s opinion published on Wednesday: “Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of ‘paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind’ that the First Amendment was designed to guard against.”

    The judges said that photographs were “inherently expressive”, like other artistic mediums such as films or books, and so the process of creating them, as well as the images themselves, was part of an American’s right to free speech because “thought is intertwined with expression”.

    Debjani Roy, deputy director of Hollaback!, a New York-based anti-street harassment group, told the Guardian it is “a huge violation and absolutely appalling that the rights of predators are being valued over the rights of women and girls.”

    Thompson was indicted by a grand jury on 26 felony counts of improper photography. After another appeals court declared the statute unconstitutional last year, the Bexar County district attorney’s office issued a press release titled “Cover up while we appeal!”

    At least 151 inappropriate photography cases have been filed in the Houston area alone since the law’s introduction in 2001, the Houston Chronicle reported.

    One saw a 12-year-old girl convicted and sentenced to a year’s probation for taking a surreptitious photograph of a classmate in a school dressing-room, though the image did not show nudity and was swiftly deleted.

    While there is a federal law against taking voyeuristic images on federal property, the issue is generally regulated at state level where seemingly outdated rules have prompted occasional controversies. Earlier this year the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that a man who used his mobile phone to take “upskirt” photographs of women riding the Boston subway did not break the state’s secretive photography law because the women were not nude or partially nude. The following day, lawmakers approved a bill criminalising such behaviour.
    Judges strike down part of statute, saying ‘inherently expressive’ medium of photography is part of right to free speech


    Taking pictures of people's private areas without their permission... free speech
    Texas :b;
    :vomit:

  • #2
    The problem here appears to be an overly broad law. Just have the Texas legislators copy the work done in Massachusetts.
    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
      The problem here appears to be an overly broad law. Just have the Texas legislators copy the work done in Massachusetts.
      Except the article indicates the language of the ruling goes beyond that:

      “Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of ‘paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind’ that the First Amendment was designed to guard against.”
      That's not just saying the law is so broad that it would impact non-creepshot photos. That's pretty clearly saying that prohibiting creepshot photos at all amounts to a First Amendment violation, because you don't have a right to not be viewed sexually. Of course, that's true, but there's a big difference between someone looking at you sexually and someone taking a secret close-up shot of your nether regions.

      But, need to see the whole ruling for full context. Hard to judge based on the article.
      Last edited by Boris Godunov; September 20, 2014, 11:02.
      Tutto nel mondo è burla

      Comment


      • #4
        Seems like a stupidly written law. Go back to the drawing board and do it again!
        To us, it is the BEAST.

        Comment


        • #5
          Sounds like it would be a good business plan, to organize voyeurs trips to Texas
          Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
          Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Boris Godunov View Post
            Except the article indicates the language of the ruling goes beyond that:



            That's not just saying the law is so broad that it would impact non-creepshot photos. That's pretty clearly saying that prohibiting creepshot photos at all amounts to a First Amendment violation, because you don't have a right to not be viewed sexually. Of course, that's true, but there's a big difference between someone looking at you sexually and someone taking a secret close-up shot of your nether regions.

            But, need to see the whole ruling for full context. Hard to judge based on the article.
            That is an obtuse ass argument.
            "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
            'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

            Comment


            • #7
              I like how the possibility of criminalizing paparazzi is supposed to be a potential downside of this law.
              1011 1100
              Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

              Comment


              • #8
                The first amendment protects scoundrels as much as it does saints. That's the point.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If there's a law that can somehow crush the paparazzi while leaving honest journalism untouched, I would see that as a net plus. Harassing celebrities is only a little less tawdry and unnecessary than picketing funerals. At any rate, it's a bit silly to try and appeal to our sympathies through such people. "This law will only hurt hard-working journalists trying to get a shot of a young actress's bare ass when her skirt lifts up as she steps out of a limo. Boo hoo."
                  1011 1100
                  Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Which, remember, is also protected.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Protected for no sensible reason.
                      1011 1100
                      Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        They may enjoy whining about the inconvenience, most of those celebs want and need the publicity they get via paparazzi. It's a symbiotic relationship.

                        Dealing with paparazzi is one of the first-world "problems" associated with fame, and is not deserving of sympathy. If you don't want to be hounded by paparazzi, choose not to become famous -- or learn to pay for the discretion you need. Easy.

                        BTW, I can understand why publishing or disseminating photography/video would be considered free speech. But the capturing of it? While I have no problem with people taking photos/video in public for personal use, I have trouble thinking of the recording of public imagery as "speech."
                        Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
                        RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by -Jrabbit View Post
                          They may enjoy whining about the inconvenience, most of those celebs want and need the publicity they get via paparazzi. It's a symbiotic relationship.
                          Anyone whose fame is dependent on unauthorized candid photos instead of having actual accomplishments should just be ignored.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I never understood why they get attention anyway.
                            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              because boobies
                              Indifference is Bliss

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X