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 ...
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).
Good point...
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.
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.
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.
So I guess it’s freedom of expression when a victim of one of these so-called photographers kicks their ass.
“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.
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.
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.
“http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/doctors-irresponsible-to-send-troops-to-combat-ebola/";
Mirrored panties?
Really, shouldn’t Texas fathers, brothers, and husbands handle this problem themselves rather than wasting law enforcement and cop time?
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?
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.
Do black patent leather shoes really reflect up?
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?
address = addresses
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.
I don't know about patent leather but regular leather spit shined shoes do tho' not like a photo.
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.