12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Good grief, Texas

by whateverpedia
10 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Words fail me.

Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    Upon reading the article, it appears, at least to me, that the judge got it right. It appears to be a broad, poorly written law. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the statute altered to better define its purpose.
    Signature

    Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536193].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    The end result is that the judge is forcing lawmakers to write a better law.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536207].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      The end result is that the judge is forcing lawmakers to write a better law.
      The question is, will they?
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536222].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kenmichaels
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        The question is, will they?
        Do they ever?
        Signature

        Selling Ain't for Sissies!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536231].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          The question is, will they?
          Originally Posted by kenmichaels View Post

          Do they ever?
          Massachusetts did, like two days after a the high court ruling outraged folks.

          Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill Friday, according to his office, making photographing or recording video under a person's clothing -- think down a blouse or up a skirt -- a misdemeanor.

          "The legislation makes the secret photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveiling of another person's sexual or other intimate parts, whether under or around a person's clothing or when a reasonable person would believe that the person's intimate parts would not be visible to the public, a crime," Patrick's office said in a prepared statement. The crime is punishable by up 2½ years in jail or a fine of up to $5,000.

          In addition, the law states that "whoever videotapes or photographs, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a child" faces a sentence of 2½ to 5 years and up to a $5,000 fine. The law goes into effect immediately.

          http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/justic...-upskirt-bill/
          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536251].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
            Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

            You forgot to call out Massachusetts when you went after Texas.
            Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

            Yep, Massachusetts did, like two days after a the high court ruling outraged folks.
            Which is why I didn't mention Massachusetts, although it is mentioned in the linked article.

            If Texas does move to correct this "poorly written law", all well and good. We shall see if they do, and how long that takes.
            Signature
            Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
            So that blind people can hate them as well.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536265].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
              Banned
              Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

              Words fail me.
              Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

              If Texas does move to correct this "poorly written law", all well and good. We shall see if they do, and how long that takes.
              We can't be busting photographers for taking legit editorial shots like I have here. As stated, the appellate court was trying to protect constitutional rights with their ruling. Sometimes it takes tough, upsetting and/or controversial rulings to make things better and/or safer for everyone.



              I am guessing some new provisions will be written..

              Cheers

              -don
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536285].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        The question is, will they?
        I would guess so. There are going to be a lot of people displeased with the judge's decision, especially women. It's a no-brainer for anyone who wants to get re-elected, IMO.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536249].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

    You forgot to call out Massachusetts when you went after Texas.

    Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing -- a practice known as "upskirting" -- prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.

    The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.

    Massachusetts court says 'upskirt' photos are legal - CNN.com
    I agree with Dan and Dennis with regards to the Texas case as it appears the law and/or relevant statutes were poorly written. With only one dissenter it's seems like a pretty clear cut decision by presiding Judge Sharon Keller and the rest of the appellate court.

    KELLER, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which PRICE,
    WOMACK, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, COCHRAN and ALCALA, JJ., joined. MEYERS, J., dissented.

    http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Searc...d-fff85d0dddc1
    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536230].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    These types of cases have been hitting the courts for well over a decade. Below is a 1999/2000 Seattle that case was brought to the state Supreme Court that was ruled on in 2002.

    'Upskirt' photographs deemed lewd but legal

    It's disgusting, the state Supreme Court opined.
    It's reprehensible, the court added for good measure.

    Although (their) actions are reprehensible, we agree that the voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit upskirt photography in a public place," Justice Bobbe Bridge, one of four women on the state Supreme Court, wrote in the unanimous opinion.

    The decision will almost certainly lead the Legislature to change the law, the prosecution and defense lawyers agreed.

    Local News | 'Upskirt' photographs deemed lewd but legal | Seattle Times Newspaper
    Creeps are rightfully getting convicted in county courts all over the nation so one could reasonably figure many the states have some good anti-upskirt legislation in place by now. Remember when the EPIC went after the US Department of Homeland Security on "upskirt" and other laws/acts for using those heavy duty body scanners?

    The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is pushing on with its lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security over the TSA’s whole-body imaging scanners. The privacy group filed the suit in July asking for an emergency stay of the controversial program. The federal appeals court denied the request for a stay, but did allow the lawsuit to proceed. EPIC filed its opening brief this week, alleging that the machines’ ability to take nakey scans of us violates the Fourth Amendment, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, among others.

    Should the Law that Protects Against Upskirt Filming Protect Against TSA Body Scanners? - Forbes
    The Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act has been enforce since 2004...

    `Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism

    ``(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
    of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private
    area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under
    circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of
    privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
    year, or both.
    ``(b) In this section--
    ``(1) the term `capture', with respect to an image, means to
    videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
    ``(2) the term `broadcast' means to electronically transmit
    a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or
    persons;
    ``(3) the term `a private area of the individual' means the
    naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or
    female breast of that individual;
    ``(4) the term `female breast' means any portion of the
    female breast below the top of the areola; and
    ``(5) the term `under circumstances in which that individual
    has a reasonable expectation of privacy' means--
    ``(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person
    would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy,
    without being concerned that an image of a private area
    of the individual was being captured; or
    ``(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person
    would believe that a private area of the individual
    would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that
    person is in a public or private place.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...108publ495.htm
    Of course federal charges must be heard in a federal court....like these were here.

    The former director of the Naval Surface Warfare Center at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant was sentenced in federal court last week after pleading guilty to three counts of video voyeurism for secretly recording women as they used the restroom at the facility.

    http://www.ok-criminal-defense.com/a...voyeurism-case
    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9536350].message }}

Trending Topics