Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures

[Dr Strangelove]

Does the law affect the distribution of photographs taken without permission? Does it mean that I can take a creepshot and post it or distribute it without your permission?

[Proteus_MST]

Would be strange if if were otherwise.

After all they use the Freedom of Speech"-Law in order to justifythe taking of underskirt shots.

If speech is only allowed in your own 4 walls, and is disallowed from being spread to other people, it is not really free. Therefore, if underskirt pics are equal to "speech", their distribution has to be allowed without limitations.

[Sava]

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.

[Alexander's Horse]

[Kidlicious]

Does the law affect the distribution of photographs taken without permission? Does it mean that I can take a creepshot and post it or distribute it without your permission?

Yes, you have to ask Brittany Spears if you can post a crotch shot of her.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So I'm reading the opinion, and the state's law is really overbroad:

A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records . . . a visual image
of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person’s consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.18

(videotaping in a bathroom or private dressing room is dealt with in another statute) So some model is wearing a bikini on a public beach and you think she's hot and snap a picture you'd be in violation of this statute. The First Amendment has definitely been held to apply to sexual arousing or gratifying pictures - how do you think porn falls under First Amendment protections?

The Court goes on to say:

As the Supreme 62
Court has explained, “Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First
Amendment,” and even some obscene sexual expression enjoys First Amendment protection if it 63
occurs solely within the confines of the home. Of course, the statute at issue here does not require 64
that the photographs or visual recordings be obscene, be child pornography, or even be depictions
of nudity, nor does the statute require the intent to produce photographs or visual recordings of that
nature. Banning otherwise protected expression on the basis that it produces sexual arousal or
gratification is the regulation of protected thought, and such a regulation is outside the 65
government’s power

Which I think is right on the money.