• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Upskirt Photography - Legal or Illegal???

Taking an upskirt photo should


  • Total voters
    71
Status
Not open for further replies.
An upskirt shot of a 13 year old girl's panties is pedophilia now? Wow, this just keeps getting better.

Know what happens if you're caught with thousands of photos of 13 year old girls in their panties on your computer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

So you're okay with a grown man's having the legal right taking an upskirt picture of an underage minor without her consent? Is this your position?
 
So you're okay with a grown man's having the legal right taking an upskirt picture of an underage minor without her consent? Is this your position?

Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

No, it is NOT "okay". However, I don't view it as a criminal offense either.

So what's the cutoff? If I take a picture of a 2 year old in a diaper, should I be put to death? Let's delve into your obviously sane parameters.
 
This reminds me of a recent case where someone wasn't found guilty of texting a woman a picture of his junk.
The law specifically stated physical photographs.
 
An upskirt shot of a 13 year old girl's panties is pedophilia now? Wow, this just keeps getting better.

Know what happens if you're caught with thousands of photos of 13 year old girls in their panties on your computer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

There has been at least one conviction of a man for taking such pictures about twenty years ago. The court ruled that the emphasis on the crotch area of a minor made the pictures child obscenity. I don't recall if the conviction was upheld or not. A quick search didn't turn up the info.
 
Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

No, it is NOT "okay". However, I don't view it as a criminal offense either.

So what's the cutoff? If I take a picture of a 2 year old in a diaper, should I be put to death? Let's delve into your obviously sane parameters.

Gipper, in your case, I think you are better off getting rid of all your cameras and never taking another picture. If you can't see where the line gets crossed, it's best you not risk it.
 
Gipper, in your case, I think you are better off getting rid of all your cameras and never taking another picture. If you can't see where the line gets crossed, it's best you not risk it.

The line gets crossed when you accuse people of what you just did. This ends now.
 
It is a rude invasion of space and privacy, but not perverted. Most men would like a peak under some skirts.

Sticking cameras up women's dresses/skirts is perverted. It fits the definition of "perverted" too.

per·vert·ed
pərˈvərtid/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their actions) characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies.
 
I'll trade you! :D I'm only half-kidding--I think you and I both have a case of "the grass is greener on the other side."

I'm quite sure you would miss your beautiful warm weather very soon! :lol:
 
I remember when I used to go to church, I listened to the preacher give a sermon. He started to tell the story of a man who took a woman home with the intention of having sex with her. He said she took off her bra and stuff flab was hanging. Then she took off her girdle on more flab was hanging. The man was then turned off and didn't want it anymore.

I don't remember what his point was, but he told that story.

The places I've been, the things I've heard.

I look at it this way, if women from the Show-Me State insist on being honest and just showing us with they are all about, isn't that bearing true witness instead of false witness? I believe morals should be used for goodness and not badness whenever possible.
 
So you think, that just because a woman/lady/girl is wearing a skirt/dress, you have a RIGHT to not only see what she's wearing underneath, but you can also photograph it without her consent or knowledge of what you're doing?

Don't characterize what I said incorrectly. What I said is that if a person (not specifically me) can see it with their own two eyes-- and it is in a public place; then it would follow that they would have a right to photograph it. If the woman doesn't want it seen, then it's up to her to be certain that it is not seen.

You do not need someone's permission to be photographed in a public place unless you are using their image for commercial purposes.


Do you also have a RIGHT to yank her dress down so you can get a better shot? Afterall - it's not like she's naked or anything.

No, and I never said that, so let's not be intellectually dishonst here. Touching her person would be a battery. If the reason for that touching was sexual, then most states call that a sexual battery, so there are already laws that cover that.
 
Taken from NBC online news:
The legislation says anyone who "photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils" another person's sexual or intimate parts without that person's consent would face a misdemeanor charge and a maximum penalty of two-and-a-half years in jail and a $5,000 fine.

The crime becomes a felony with a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for photographs or recordings of a child under 18. Distributing such photos would carry a maximum punishment of 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Murray said those who take such photos sometimes post them on pornographic websites.
I'm sorry but this new legislation seems like a typical knee-jerk reaction by politicians and I would expect that the supreme court of Mass. might have a different view of this new law. First of all does "sexual parts" include a woman's clothed breasts? Since the state already defines the intentional unwanted touching of a woman's breasts as a "sexual battery", does that mean that the unwanted viewing and photographing of a woman's clothed breasts, rear-end and crotch now become an assault too, even when the "sexual parts" are photographed? How would this jibe with a photographer's first amendment rights under the US Constitution? How do you prove that a man taking photographs at the beach (without a telephoto lens or other technology) isn't in violation of this law? Like I said before, in a public place (a place where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy), if you can see it clearly without using extra means to see it, you should be allowed to photograph it. If a woman wears a low top or a short skirt and a guy can see over or under her clothes, that is on her. Are we really wanting to make photography without consent a crime?

Maybe the law should include having a man's eyes put out with hot irons... or forcing women to wear burkas in public? Is that where we are heading in this country?

I agree that it is a typical knee-jerk political reaction. If I were a legislator, while I agree it should be illegal, I would not vote for this law in this form. The penalties are too harsh. Years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines is way over-the-top for this particular issue.
 
Sorry, I had to go for the joke vote and choose option 3.
 
Replace flirty with flashing and you are there.
You're just replacing one word with a different word denoting the same concept. It still doesn't wash, legally.


Ah yeah - you're right.

But still - there has to be something that alreayd exists which should stand to protect women from such behavior. What kind of a society can't punish someone for being just so sleazy? You know - a bit of frustration here. Does everything need explicit wording or something?
In a court of law? Yes, everything needs to be explicitly worded. Haven't you seen lawyers fighting over the difference between 'a' and 'the' or with a comma or not? :lol: They'll argue over anything unless the wording is virtually unambiguous - and sometimes they'll argue anyway!


I can understand the frustration. For example, there's a big difference (to me) between someone using a backhoe in the middle of the day and someone cranking up their stereo in the middle of the day. But legally there's no real difference. Both are covered under noise laws and the backhoe is just as loud if not louder than the 'music'. So, while I really dislike the guy next door (in our OLD neighborhood, thank goodness!) craning up his music during the day, there isn't much I can do about it. Arguably, it's no worse than someone using construction equipment. *shrug*

The same applies here. Tim the plumber is trying to pin down "flirty" behavior but women intentionally and unintentionally "flash" their panties all the time. I couldn't count the number of (probably not intentional) "beaver shots" I've seen in my lifetime. How are you going to legally tell the difference between a woman who accidentally flashes from one who doesn't? I mean, if a woman wears a short skirt and "happens" to flash, isn't it still intentional? Otherwise, why would she be wearing the short skirt?
 
Last edited:
I hope they defined the illegal angle from horizontal of the waist (maybe?) or other such technicality or that "law" is nothing but a political show and waste of the public's time.

If a woman is sitting down facing me and her short skirt doesn't conceal her panties, is it OK then?
How about those low-cut evening gowns that show more cleavage than some bikini's?
How about the punk rockers who show most of their bra as part of their attire?

It's going to take a lot more than some vague law to resolve this issue --- and if it happened that fast I can almost guarantee we'll revisit this issue in the near future.
 
Look, nobody is saying taking this picture will now become illegal:

naked_cowboy_04.jpg


Neither will taking this photo:
cabo-beach-girls.jpg


Neither will taking this photo:
lady-gaga-022111-1sJPG_400_1000_0_85_1_50_50.jpg


This guy however -
upskirt01.jpg
 
You're just replacing one word with a different word denoting the same concept. It still doesn't wash, legally.


In a court of law? Yes, everything needs to be explicitly worded. Haven't you seen lawyers fighting over the difference between 'a' and 'the' or with a comma or not? :lol: They'll argue over anything unless the wording is virtually unambiguous - and sometimes they'll argue anyway!


I can understand the frustration. For example, there's a big difference (to me) between someone using a backhoe in the middle of the day and someone cranking up their stereo in the middle of the day. But legally there's no real difference. Both are covered under noise laws and the backhoe is just as loud if not louder than the 'music'. So, while I really dislike the guy next door (in our OLD neighborhood, thank goodness!) craning up his music during the day, there isn't much I can do about it. Arguably, it's no worse than someone using construction equipment. *shrug*

The same applies here. Tim the plumber is trying to pin down "flirty" behavior but women intentionally and unintentionally "flash" their panties all the time. I couldn't count the number of (probably not intentional) "beaver shots" I've seen in my lifetime. How are you going to legally tell the difference between a woman who accidentally flashes from one who doesn't? I mean, if a woman wears a short skirt and "happens" to flash, isn't it still intentional? Otherwise, why would she be wearing the short skirt?

OMG! Seriously? :roll: Yes, us women wear a short skirt so some weirdo can STICK A CAMERA UP OUR SKIRTS AND TAKE PICTURES. Are you for real?
 
Look, nobody is saying taking this picture will now become illegal:

naked_cowboy_04.jpg


Neither will taking this photo:
cabo-beach-girls.jpg


Neither will taking this photo:
lady-gaga-022111-1sJPG_400_1000_0_85_1_50_50.jpg


This guy however -
upskirt01.jpg

Absolutely. I have to wonder if some people are just dumb. :doh
 
OMG! Seriously? :roll: Yes, us women wear a short skirt so some weirdo can STICK A CAMERA UP OUR SKIRTS AND TAKE PICTURES. Are you for real?

Haven't you been following? It's obviously all the fault of the female. If she wears a skirt or dress, she's literally inviting men to do whatever they deem necessary to not only see what she's wearing underneath, but to also get photographic evidence, regardless of consent or knowledge of said female.

Women. It's their fault. They are the temptress. The demon temptress.
 
Can we really have a problem, if women from the Show-Me State, just show us what they are all about in modern times?
Most Missouri women are prudes and I have a lifetime of experience to back up that statement.
 
Haven't you been following? It's obviously all the fault of the female. If she wears a skirt or dress, she's literally inviting men to do whatever they deem necessary to not only see what she's wearing underneath, but to also get photographic evidence, regardless of consent or knowledge of said female.

Women. It's their fault. They are the temptress. The demon temptress.

You know, law or no law, if some guy tried to do that to me, I would kick the living hell out of him and enjoy it too. :)
 
See this lady here:

article_2181968_145212_EF000005_DC_963_634x425.jpg



all her fault.....she's asking for this kind of behavior. The guy - well he's obviously the victim here.
 
See this lady here:

article_2181968_145212_EF000005_DC_963_634x425.jpg



all her fault.....she's asking for this kind of behavior. The guy - well he's obviously the victim here.

Obviously she is wearing that dress just so strange weirdos can take pictures of her crotch and ass.
 
OMG! Seriously? :roll: Yes, us women wear a short skirt so some weirdo can STICK A CAMERA UP OUR SKIRTS AND TAKE PICTURES. Are you for real?
GUYS DON'T NEED TO STICK THE CAMERA UNDER THE SHORT SKIRT TO TAKE A PIC OF THE PANTIES!

That's the point. I've seen plenty of "beaver shots" in my time to know that a short skirt will almost always end up showing the panties. Some woman can pull that act off but most can't. At some point or other their panties will be visible and it doesn't require a camera under the skirt to see them.
 
Last edited:
GUYS DON'T NEED TO STICK THE CAMERA UNDER THE SHORT SKIRT TO TAKE A PIC OF THE PANTIES!

That's the point. I've seen plenty of "beaver shots" in my time to know that a short skirt will almost always end up showing the panties. Some woman can pull that act off but most can't. At some point or other their panties will be visible and it doesn't require a camera under the skirt to see them.

What's the point? I don't see any points here at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom