• 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.
Looking and taking a photo are different things.

I agree with this. One thing if you're going up an escalator and you see a bit too much of the person above you. But taking a picture of it? without permission? That's the kind of thing I think the law should be rewritten to ban.

On the other hand, we have given up a lot of our rights to privacy over the years, what with public video cameras everywhere.

It's pretty sad that we can't rely on people to be decent; no one should try to take these photos.
 
I think the real danger of taking upskirt pictures is that the photographer positions the camera so low to the ground. Some unsuspecting husband or father might just be daydreaming and not see the photographer and accidentally drive his foot into the camera and shove it inside the photographer's body cavity. Damn.
 

You took a crack at it. However, I will note that neither reference has a time frame of 55 years.

BTW, regarding rape, I am very unhappy to note that a close relative of mine, who just got out of college about two years ago, was raped by a friend of one of her male friends. Her so called friend did not even try to defend her when he was told about it. I have been led to believe, it's not uncommon at all now for young women to be raped. Not easy to be proved. I know that's unofficial, but that's a true story.
 
Of course, I heard about this on my local news today. :roll: Disgusting. Hopefully something is done about this.

What's disturbing about this, is that these guys aren't just doing this for themselves, they put this crap online. Losers.
 
Of course, I heard about this on my local news today. :roll: Disgusting. Hopefully something is done about this.

What's disturbing about this, is that these guys aren't just doing this for themselves, they put this crap online. Losers.

another reason to wear steel toed spikes with a mini skirt!
 
Because the law wasn't written to cover this situation. I certainly hope the Massachusetts lawmakers amend the law to cover this.

Me too. I'm sure something will be done. I'm still stunned that this couldn't be covered under some kind of law. Sure cell phones are new, but cameras sure aren't. I would have thought this would be covered under some kind of laws about voyeurism, like peeping toms!
 
Me too. I'm sure something will be done. I'm still stunned that this couldn't be covered under some kind of law. Sure cell phones are new, but cameras sure aren't. I would have thought this would be covered under some kind of laws about voyeurism, like peeping toms!

Agree, Sad that it wasn't covered.
 
Agree, Sad that it wasn't covered.

I really don't see what the difference is between doing this and peeping at someone. Women don't wear skirts with the idea that some perv is going to be looking up her skirt or taking pictures. So if it's not "illegal" does that mean I could get in trouble for kicking a guy right in his stupid face if he did this to me I wonder? :lol: Because that would more than likely happen.
 
Me too. I'm sure something will be done. I'm still stunned that this couldn't be covered under some kind of law. Sure cell phones are new, but cameras sure aren't. I would have thought this would be covered under some kind of laws about voyeurism, like peeping toms!

And what law do you suggest? Pornography? No nudity involved. Voyeurism? Nope. Same as before. Trespassing? Public domain. Assault? No bodily harm took place.

The only argument is if you tried for some "public decency", but that's a slippery slope.
 
And what law do you suggest? Pornography? No nudity involved. Voyeurism? Nope. Same as before. Trespassing? Public domain. Assault? No bodily harm took place.

The only argument is if you tried for some "public decency", but that's a slippery slope.

What's the difference between this and taking a picture of someone in a state of undress? Just because they're wearing a skirt and in a public place? Their privacies are still being violated IMO.
 
What's the difference between this and taking a picture of someone in a state of undress? Just because they're wearing a skirt and in a public place? Their privacies are still being violated IMO.

I cannot see a grand jury, or a prosecutor, filing charges against some woman who just did her best field goal kicker tryout effort on the face of some asshole who was trying to take a picture of her panties under her skirt
 
I cannot see a grand jury, or a prosecutor, filing charges against some woman who just did her best field goal kicker tryout effort on the face of some asshole who was trying to take a picture of her panties under her skirt

Knowing our backward-ass laws, they probably would file charges against the woman. :roll: Don't forget, this is liberal Massachusetts.
 
What's the difference between this and taking a picture of someone in a state of undress? Just because they're wearing a skirt and in a public place? Their privacies are still being violated IMO.

Depends on that "state". If it shows some sweater meat or snapper, that'd be illegal. Bra and panties, not so much.
 
Can't really agree. The law was written in such a way that this was not illegal.

Or - did you want judges making laws? I thought you were against that, but I could be wrong.

Taking pictures up women's dresses is ok? If you think it's ok please don't respond.
 
Taking pictures up women's dresses is ok? If you think it's ok please don't respond.

I was gonna ask about your handle and this topic:mrgreen:
 
It seems like a very solidly-grey area to me.

The basic rule, with which I fully agree, is that anything that is visible in public, you can photograph; the only exception being where it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. A clear example of that exception would be in such a place as a locker room, restroom, dressing room, or such, where people reasonably expect to be able to undress, and not be photographed. I'd also consider it to fall under this exception to make an extraordinary effort to position a camera where it can get a view up a woman's skirt, in order to take a picture of a view that isn't easily observed in a direct manner. I'm completely fine with laws that make it a crime to intentionally position a camera in such a manner.

I would not consider it to fall under this exception is the woman is being careless about how she moves, how her skirt moves, how she sits, stands, or whatever, so that she provides a view that is easily seen by the public. Anything that she either intentionally or willfully shows in public, she has no right or reasonable expectation that it will not be photographed. For example, this photograph that someone else posted a bit back in this thread:

23_2012101211134104.jpg


I recognize that there's a huge grey area between these extremes—of someone having to go to a specific effort to position a camera to look up a woman's skirt, and someone taking a picture of a woman who has carelessly or intentionally allowed her skirt to expose things that a woman normally ought not expose in public.
 
When compared to the limitless availability of whatever on the Internet, it seems like a childish, boring thing to do. Talking a big chance for no reason.
 
Taking pictures up women's dresses is ok? If you think it's ok please don't respond.

never said that. Wish you would read what I wrote. I said the law AS WRITTEN didn't cover this circumstance (according to the articles). If the judge had ruled that the law did cover this, that would have been the judge making law. I'm not necessarily against that, but that's not really what we want judges doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom