Problem was the law covered major awards too.
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 ...
Yes, it protects the killing of unborn babies.
I hope they will also rule that a father's/husband's/brother's fists or the girl's knee/elbow/fist/foot in response to this intrusion on privacy are also "inherently expressive". It's Texas, so they should see my point.
Note to all women in Texas, “wear your bra and panties.”
Not in public.
Common Sense is very uncommon.
This is the equivalent of a Peeping Tom.
It’s a sex crime.
These judges should be removed from the bench.
There are going to be times when a group picture is taken, or even a single picture will be taken and an upskirt shot will be captured. That isn’t the same thing.
The natural assumption of innocence covers a normal shot.
This guy clearly had devious intent.
this ruling is stupid
If you wear a skirt in public your crotch does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Liberal idiot judges.
The ‘RAT controlled “courts” are out of control. Loaded with nothing but a bunch of loons and buffoons. What a joke.
When walking around in public, you have no right to stop people from photographing you and your surroundings.
If you are worried about how you may appear in public, dress so that you aren't worried. You are in public.
Problem was the law covered major awards too.
That’s exactly right. Your expectations of privacy go out the window once you’re in public.
Fair is fair. Set up cameras in Austin and Houston to snap uptent photos of muslimettes and post them anonymously on the internet.
Because a camera is a way of expressing oneself, these people think that it’s ok to use it for taking illegal pictures. Following their logic, if a gun is for shooting, no one could be accused of murder by gun.
So now women can’t wear a dress in public?
Are you aware that some men walk around with devices (mirrors) to capture up-skirt shots?
You think that should be protected under the First Amendment?
Yikes!
There was more wisdom in the old days when "Gentleman" did not necessarily mean gentle, but did mean proper.
How does a woman dress to block a camera hidden on a shoe or a cane tip?
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.