Tennessee appeals judges say it's OK to make creepy videos of women without their consent

USA Today / MSN ^ | 5-12,20 | Jamie Satterfield, Knoxville News Sentinel

[Tired of Taxes]

Three judges–all men–wrote three separate but nearly identical opinions concluding it's not a crime in Tennessee to film fully clothed women without their consent if they're in public.

The issue arose in the case of an admitted sexual deviant who was convicted of unlawful photography and admitted he stalked women in retail stores and filmed their "private areas" for sexual gratification.

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Judges D. Kelly Thomas Jr., James Curwood Witt Jr. and Thomas T. Woodall collectively and separately tossed out unlawful photography convictions against the Sullivan County man, who has a history of public indecency charges.

In three separate opinions, the trio reach the same conclusion: No one has a right to expect privacy in the digital age.

“Exposure to the capture of our images by cameras has become, perhaps unfortunately, a reality of daily life in our digital age,” Thomas wrote.

“When nearly every person goes about her day with a handheld device capable of taking hundreds of photographs and videos and every public place is equipped with a wide variety of surveillance equipment, it is simply not reasonable to expect that our fully-clothed images will remain totally private,” he concluded.

Thomas, Witt and Woodall agreed evidence showed David Eric Lambert intentionally filmed women for sexual gratification, took “close-up” footage of three women’s “private areas” in three separate stores, tried to hide his filming and admitted he “crossed moral boundaries.”

The three men also agreed Lambert had a string of prior misdemeanor convictions for exposing himself and committing sexual acts in public.

They acknowledged Lambert’s victims found him “creepy” even before they realized he was filming them and tried to evade him. One woman ran out of the store. Another alerted security.

But, the trio concluded, without an “expectation of privacy,” Lambert’s actions aren’t criminal.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Then they deserved it!

[Bob434]

out in cali a judge ruled that photographers can take photos through people’s windows on their homes- said it wasn’t against the law- don’t know if that’s been overturned or not- hopefully it has-

[Harpotoo]

He wasn’t upskirting them with a shoe cam was he?

[Secret Agent Man]

Govt has to rule this way, they are the biggest filmers of anyone in public.

[Secret Agent Man]

I simply don’t know why they cant get him on trespassing/public nuisance charges.

smart da’s would go this route.

i’d even say if he was recording these and then selling them to others, get him for filming without permits and not filing business taxes...

i mean there are ways to deal with it. He’s clearly an exception to the norm.

[Secret Agent Man]

If men couldn’t srare at womens breasts in public, Joe Biden could never leave the house.

[I want the USA back]

Did somebody tell creepy joe?

[rlmorel]

I see the problem as scope.

I think everyone agrees that this guy was a nut case perv who should have his ass kicked.

But, if you want to draw a line, where the heck do you draw that line?

If you are snapping a picture of a tag on merchandise, and someone walks by in the background and that person ends up in your picture, is that going to be against the law?

Or, if you are taking a picture of an interesting building and a person is in the photo, is that against the law?

I just see everything about it as being fraught with stupidity or peril around this privacy law.

[Bommer]

So you are objecting to people using a telephoto lens? Sorry but the dirty little secret is that when men are out in public, we don't zero in on their shoes! Here proof.

This is a chinese hacker who goes by the name of "Sexycyborg" this is how she hacks systems

"With my shadowless shoes I distract the target with my…upper body and they don’t see the real danger on my feet, " she wrote.

Within her high heel lurks a variety of hacking devices including a USB keylogger, which can be plugged into a computer and record every letter type by its user - allowing her to harvest passwords or other sensitive information.

The stiletto also hides a pen testing device which can be plugged into a network, allowing her to remotely access it.

Someone who knows how to use her assets and isn't afraid to uses them.

[familyop]

Well, what will the population of women in that state look like in a few years? Imagine that, and recoil.

[familyop]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/florida/garage-exposure-collar-625819

[Tired of Taxes]

So you are objecting to people using a telephoto lens?

The perv wasn't using a telephoto lens. He was following the women, then getting up close and filming them.

See Post #14 above.

[zeugma]

I see the problem as scope.

I think everyone agrees that this guy was a nut case perv who should have his ass kicked.

But, if you want to draw a line, where the heck do you draw that line?

If you are snapping a picture of a tag on merchandise, and someone walks by in the background and that person ends up in your picture, is that going to be against the law?

Or, if you are taking a picture of an interesting building and a person is in the photo, is that against the law?

I just see everything about it as being fraught with stupidity or peril around this privacy law.

Yup. Pretty much agree with all of the above. The actual solution is for someone to kick his ass, but we can't really easily enshrine that into law.

Those lines are what court cases are all, especially boundary lines that end up at the appellate and supreme court level. They spend a lot of time drawing lines, and sadly they often miss. This is one of the problems I have with the term "reasonable expectation of privacy" (REOP) as a legal standard. I apparently tend to expect a heck of a lot more privacy than the government is willing to countenance, especially when it's an agent of the state digging through my garbage, or similar things.

It's also really hard to deal with incidentals, like your example of photographing a tag. When you're snapping the photo, you might not notice anything at all, but the person being photographed, could well thing you were trying to do something pervy. Of course, among reasonable folks, she might raise and objection, you'd say what you were doing, and look at it, and if it was questionable, apologize, and take another picture of the tag after deleting the original. She'd thank you, and you'd be on your way. Of course, no one wants to be reasonable anymore.

One of my biggest peeves about the way the government has interpreted REOP is that the only time you actually have privacy anymore is in your house, with the curtains drawn, and you're sitting in the dark. The government has done a superb job of pretty much eliminating the concept of 'privacy' anywhere else. I think they've gone too far in that direction, but for some reason the lines keep being redrawn more and more in the favor of the surveillance state every year.

[rlmorel]

I think it is shameful what the left has done to this country.

As a man, I am not allowed to interact with children who are not my own. I can’t say hello to them, I can barely even make eye contact with them without having some overprotective mother think their child is in danger and usher them away while giving me dirty or worried looks.

And that has been instilled in a couple of generations of children (and parents now)

I hate it.

This is just another example. My wife paints, and occasionally she asks me to take a picture of something or someone because she thinks it will make a good subject, but I feel extremely uneasy about it, never mind asking permission.

Now this coronavirus crap and social distancing. I find this whole weirdness of interactions with other people in our society to be repellent.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I feel like the story is providing evidence not in the actual case. Because the judges are describing a person filming a fully clothed person in public, and the article keeps mentioning him sneaking into restrooms and filming private parts.

Maybe they only found public pictures on his phone, so while the women claim he was in the restroom, they can’t prove it?

[Tired of Taxes]

The article is written in a confusing way.

From what I can gather, this guy was doing all sorts of creepy things, including exposing himself.

But, the judges considered the filming alone to be legal because he was filming the women in public places, like stores, while the women were shopping.

Here’s the problem: He would follow these women, sneak up real close, and film certain parts of their bodies.

The women were fully clothed, but he was filming their backsides, for example. He admitted to the Court that he was watching the films at home for his own gratification. Ick.

[Tired of Taxes]

Can you legally badger people in public?

These judges seem to think so. :-(

[zeugma]

As a man, I am not allowed to interact with children who are not my own. I can’t say hello to them, I can barely even make eye contact with them without having some overprotective mother think their child is in danger and usher them away while giving me dirty or worried looks.

And that has been instilled in a couple of generations of children (and parents now)

I believe this is by design, and I too find it to be extraordinarily evil and destructive. The entire "stranger danger" drumbeat hurts my heart, because children are our most precious gift from God, and we should all do what we can to make kids feel safe, happy, and loved, even if we don't know them well.

[rlmorel]

I think that institutionalized and approved distrust is sad, and incredibly corrosive to our society.

Thanks for responding on this. Sometimes, I feel that I am the only one who sees it that way. So, thanks.

[Rastus]

It’s written in a confusing way because it is propaganda and editorializing instead of an impartial report. I’d recommend searching for a version of the story from a neutral site instead of this feminist agitprop.