Not the same thing.
The up the skirt shot, is in effect disrobing the woman.
She had dressed so that she had the reasonable expectation of her private parts being covered. This person uses a device to take a picture that she did not approve of.
What’s the difference in this guy simply taking her blouse and bra off to get the shot he wants. After all, he should have artistic license. She’s out of the house.
I don’t agree with the court here.
If she walks on a second level and the guy can see up her dress, you would have a good argument. She should have considered changing or not walking close enough to the edge so someone could see.
If he uses a device, he’s fair game for prosecution IMO.
If she wears something too short and sits down relinquishing her privacy by choice, I say the guy is being classless, but then so is she.
If she’s walking and not showing anything, then the guy has no right to take a photo.
Let’s change it to one of voyeurism.
If she’s standing there, should he be able to lay down on the floor and scoot up between her legs to look. Should he then be able to raise his head a foot or two?
IMO no. By what you have backed, I don’t see how you could deny him that right, if your point of view on what we are discussing prevails.
And nobody has addressed the legality of taking pictures like this of 9yr old girls.
Under the Texas Penal Code section on sexual offenses, it is a crime to electronically photograph or record a visual image of someone who is not in a bathroom or private dressing room without the other person's consent and "with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." The ruling does not address the constitutionality of the statute's latter part that involves the broadcast or transmission of images.
Looks to me like the court was struggling with the fact that statute was poorly written.
That's exactly the point. How about if she walks over a sewer grate? How about if she's walking down a set of stairs?
This court really had no choice but to come to its conclusion (which is why it was an 8-1 decision). The law by its nature is an attempt to apply objective legal standards to something that is littered with degrees of subjectivity.
She had dressed so that she had the reasonable expectation of her private parts being covered.
If she was wearing pants you'd be right, but you -- and the legal authorities, more importantly -- have no basis to determine exactly what anyone's "expectation" was.
There is a group of willing women and pervs out there that do the mall thing. I was witness to it at the Galleria in Houston. Young attractive women wearing very short skirts walk close to the edge of the upper floors and pervs with camera snap pics. It kind of surprised me, but I figured its just big city stuff.