Posted on 09/20/2014 10:53:56 AM PDT by SMGFan
The state's highest criminal court on Wednesday tossed out part of a Texas law banning "improper photography or visual recording" - surreptitious images acquired in public for sexual gratification, often called "upskirting" or "downblousing" - as a violation of federal free-speech rights and an improper restriction on a person's right to individual thoughts.
In an 8-1 ruling, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said photos, like paintings, films and books, are "inherently expressive" and, therefore, are protected by the First Amendment. The opinion supported a previous decision by the San Antonio-based 4th Court of Appeals.
Scotland rejects independence in historic referendum
"The camera is essentially the photographer's pen and paintbrush," the opinion written by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller said. "A person's purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at houstonchronicle.com ...
The question was.
How does a woman dress to block a camera hidden on a tip of a shoe or a cane tip?
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.
How ‘bout installing cameras in the urinals of the ‘public mens’ room at the 4th Court of Appeals and posting photos of the ‘privates’ of these black robes on line?
And nobody has addressed the legality of taking pictures like this of 9yr old girls.
If you don’t want to have your vagina or breasts showing in public, dress appropriately. It is not upto the public to avoid your crotch or cleavage!
Those who whine should wear burkha... I heard that you can’t see #@$! inside.
Eight of the nine justices are republican and all are elected
for six year terms via partisan elections.
http://judgepedia.org/Texas_Court_of_Criminal_Appeals
Hence the term ‘upskirt’. If you could see that stuff withOUT looking UP her skirt you would have a point.
If you’re riding on the subway or waiting in line at the store it’s fairly easy for the tip of someone’s shoe to end up underneath the perimeter of your skirt. Especially if you’re wearing a full skirt. Regardless of the length of the skirt. Once the tip of their shoe is under that perimeter they’re totally able to see whatever is up there.
This does mean that my daughters will no longer be allowed to wear their (completely totally modest and below knee length) dresses in public.
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.
You can travel on a public road to a public clinic and have a state licensed doctor abort a baby for profit to a publicly owned business because that is private, but you cannot prevent someone from hiding a camera and taking pictures of your body from beneath you because your ‘privates’ are public.
Only in American law is that considered sensible!
There is only one other situation.
Some creeps use tiny cameras mounted on their shoe, on a cane, etc.
If a women wears an ankle-length dress that covers to the neck and forearm, and stands waiting for the bus at a crowded bus top, and a man sitting at the bus top next to her puts his camera under her dress and takes a photo, she has done all she can to dress modestly.
The creep who took the picture is guilty of a) lusting after her and b) coveting her, as she is not his wife and he has no right to uncover her nakedness. It’s the same in that case as the creep having no right to tear her clothes off and photograph her; he has violated the women’s modesty.
But as you say, it is common today for women to wear revealing clothing, which is to say they are playing the harlot.
In those cases, both the harlot and the gawker are both committing sinful, wicked acts, which, in a Christian nation, would be against the civil law code, as the civil law code would implement Biblical legal standards.
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.
What’s under my skirt is private. Any upskirter is liable to get my spike heel in their shin or preferably their hand.
That’s not the crime in question. More like a type of assault.
Pee Wee Herman does upskirt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTWlU5lTCUA
Most emotionally-charged, quickly drafted, knee-jerk "for the children" legislation is.
Amazing how some didn’t think of the pedophiliac problem.
I have been basing this on the headline, which made a categorical statement that was not accurate.
The upskirt photo law was not thrown out.
Part of the upskirt photo law was.
The part that was thrown out, was probably thrown out reasonably.
If all this guy did was take public photos, I have a hard time seeing it a crime. I would have to join you in that. I might not like the opening it would give stalkers, but the general public has a right to take photos in public.
If say a family member is at an event, of course the parents or relatives are going to be taking pictures, and not just of the relative. If a member of the public goes to an outdoor event, they have a right to take a photo to remember the event by.
On the point I’ve been making, I still believe I am correct. On the issue of this person, I believe the court and you are probably correct.
Only on FR, on threads such as these, maybe 1 in 8 read the article, and maybe 1 in 40 read the opinion.
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.