Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas court throws out 'upskirt' photo law
Houston Chronicle ^ | September 17, 2014

Posted on 09/20/2014 10:53:56 AM PDT by SMGFan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: Black Agnes

It’s the up-skirt photo obtained by devious methods that I am addressing, and I would consider that not only a sex crime, but a sex crime involving minor(s).


61 posted on 09/20/2014 11:38:39 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama and the Left are maggots feeding off the flesh of the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

Good point...


62 posted on 09/20/2014 11:38:48 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama and the Left are maggots feeding off the flesh of the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

They were too busy visualizing the crotches of ‘harlots’.

My daughters wear full skirted dresses of a length between their knee and ankle. They are in no way ‘asking for it’ to have some creep with a minicam on the end of an umbrella or the tip of his shoe take pictures of them in their panties.

If I were to take such pictures in the privacy of my own home and publish them I’d have some ‘splainin’ to do to the authorities.

But apparently if my daughters are dressed like the Duggar daughters in public, they’re ‘asking for it’ and it’s totally legal and OK.


63 posted on 09/20/2014 11:39:30 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I understand the tiny camera thing. The people who engage in taking these photos, small cameras or not, are lacking in many areas. Yes, the tiny camera thing is wrong, but may I say, if the government can monitor our phone calls, mail, and web viewing then this isn’t really a stretch and I can see how someone might rationalize it isn’t wrong, when it is wrong.

I googled upskirt and downblousing; the hits are all essentially for porn sites, excepting for stories on its legality. On the lighter porn sites were women largely dressed in clothing inappropriate for the activity in which they were engaged. Most of the photos were of women wearing clothing waaaaay to small or revealing. When you dress trashy, people will think poorly of you. I think the photo is a low priority at that point.


64 posted on 09/20/2014 11:41:08 AM PDT by rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

You can’t capture that shot unless you go out of your way to do it. (excepting the situations we have discussed)

If the perp used a devious method to facilitate the capture of a photo of a woman’s private parts, it would be a given that his actions were clearly intended to invade her privacy.


65 posted on 09/20/2014 11:41:59 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama and the Left are maggots feeding off the flesh of the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

So I guess it’s freedom of expression when a victim of one of these so-called photographers kicks their ass.


66 posted on 09/20/2014 11:43:30 AM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

“the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said photos, like paintings, films and books, are “inherently expressive” and, therefore, are protected by the First Amendment.”

And the same shall apply when the one being victimized by this, CATCHES you.


67 posted on 09/20/2014 11:45:15 AM PDT by ourworldawry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

What a stupid analogy. Lifting somebody’s skirt is physical and intrusive. Taking a photo in public ain’t. Your line of thinking will turn the zoom lens into a rapist’s penis.


68 posted on 09/20/2014 11:46:07 AM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
any guy could walk up to a lady in public, strip her bare, and gawk away.

Don't change the facts. Nobody got stripped in the case. Nobody got photographed up her skirt.

Under the law, a guy could be convicted of a felony for snapping a photo of a girl with big breasts walking down the street. That's obviously unconstitutional.

69 posted on 09/20/2014 11:47:50 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/doctors-irresponsible-to-send-troops-to-combat-ebola/";

Mirrored panties?


70 posted on 09/20/2014 11:48:12 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra (Don't touch that thing Don't let anybody touch that thing!I'm a Doctor and I won't touch that thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Really, shouldn’t Texas fathers, brothers, and husbands handle this problem themselves rather than wasting law enforcement and cop time?


71 posted on 09/20/2014 11:48:52 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Hmmm. What if somebody took secret photos of the ‘privates’ of the 4th Court of Appeals judges in the court’s ‘public’ rest room and posted them on line? According to their ruling, that’s OK, no?


72 posted on 09/20/2014 11:48:59 AM PDT by shove_it (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen -- Dennis Prager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Not in public.

Without even getting into the substance of this particular case, let me just rant that the whole "no expectation of privacy in public" thing is a horrible precedent that the government, no doubt loves.

I do have an expectation of some degree of privacy in public. let's say I am walking down the street and am stricken with the sudden urge to pick my nose or scratch my butt. The risk of being seen by one or two random strangers is NOT the same as the risk of being captured in the act on the internet for all eternity.

Big brother does not want we peons the expect privacy ANYWHERE. It's BS.

73 posted on 09/20/2014 11:50:25 AM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods

Do black patent leather shoes really reflect up?


74 posted on 09/20/2014 11:56:39 AM PDT by NautiNurse (Obama sends U.S. Marines to pick up his dog & basketballs. Benghazi? Nope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

75 posted on 09/20/2014 11:57:48 AM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
let's say I am walking down the street and am stricken with the sudden urge to pick my nose or scratch my butt. The risk of being seen by one or two random strangers is NOT the same as the risk of being captured in the act on the internet for all eternity.

Which, for the most part, address the issue with the statute involved in this case. How does one criminalize taking a photo of someone else picking their nose?

76 posted on 09/20/2014 12:00:34 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

address = addresses


77 posted on 09/20/2014 12:01:52 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Cynwoody, I would agree.

I was responding on the concept of that headline. It was very misleading.

I agree with the decision in this case.

With a headline like that, it seemed I didn’t need to read any further. It was a very definitive statement. It was not factual.

Only part of the up-skirt law was eliminated.


78 posted on 09/20/2014 12:02:04 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama and the Left are maggots feeding off the flesh of the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

79 posted on 09/20/2014 12:08:42 PM PDT by mikey_hates_everything
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse
Do black patent leather shoes really reflect up?

I don't know about patent leather but regular leather spit shined shoes do tho' not like a photo.

80 posted on 09/20/2014 12:08:46 PM PDT by shove_it (old Old Guardsman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson