• 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.
tecoyah said:
People at the beach are aware of possible gawkers and have the opportunity to dress as they feel fit. People on the subway do not give the same permissions and dress to prevent it....the issue is bypassing this by invading her privacy with purposeful intent.

There is a reason she is not walking around in her panties.
Click to expand...

And yet, as it was written, the law posted by ChrisL makes no such distinction.

That's the inherent problem with legislating. They are blanketing in nature.
 
KevinKohler said:
And yet, as it was written, the law posted by ChrisL makes no such distinction.

That's the inherent problem with legislating. They are blanketing in nature.
Click to expand...

It is perfectly clear, when you stick a camera up a woman's dress and she isn't aware of it, that is video voyeurism.
 
This thread is starting to reek of thoughtcrime. Next you women will want to arrest the foot fetish guy lurking around the Pic-way.
 
Dragonfly said:
Stop with the beach analogy and bathing suits. JUST STOP!!!!

That's not even close to relevant here.

Sheeessshhhhhh ......
Click to expand...
It is relevant, because the law that was posted makes no distinction.
 
ChrisL said:
Did I suggest that you change your lifestyle somewhere?
Click to expand...

The only thing that makes sense in the context of the conversation, would be he considers himself a "Sicko" and thinks only 1% agree with him.
 
ChrisL said:
Did I suggest that you change your lifestyle somewhere?
Click to expand...

No, but it was implied that having naked pictures of my babies, or bath fun videos, somehow compromises their safety.
 
KevinKohler said:
It is relevant, because the law that was posted makes no distinction.
Click to expand...

As you can see by clicking and reading the link, there are MANY states with these laws in place already.

http://www.postcrescent.com/assets/pdf/U0158239521.PDF

Federal Law
• Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1801.
• Jurisdiction limited to maritime and territorial jurisdiction, or federal property
including but not limited to territories, federal reserves or parks, federal prisons,
etc.
• Prohibits the recording by any means or disseminating images of an individual’s
“private areas” without consent under circumstances in which that individual has
a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of whether the individual is in a
private or public location.
• Penalty of a fine and/or up to one year imprisonment.

The following states have laws which prohibit non-consensual photographic or video
recording of persons in a state of undress or nudity in locations where the individual
has a reasonable expectation of privacy. These locations vary and include, but are not
exclusive of: restrooms, changing areas, locker rooms.

*In addition to criminalizing video voyeurism as stated above, states marked with an
asterisk also specifically prohibit what is known as “upskirting” and “down-blousing.”
These laws prohibit surreptitious or concealed photography and video recordings of an
individual’s body, under or through that persons clothing, without the individual’s
knowledge and consent regardless of whether the individual is in a private or public
location. The additional language is part of the statute cited, unless a separate citation
is given.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
It is perfectly clear, when you stick a camera up a woman's dress and she isn't aware of it, that is video voyeurism.
Click to expand...

And equally clear that I could just as easily get charged with the same crime for a variety of other perfectly benign scenarios based on the definition of sexually explicit.

There is no common since where the law is concerned, only absolutes and blanket rules.
 
KevinKohler said:
And equally clear that I could just as easily get charged with the same crime for a variety of other perfectly benign scenarios based on the definition of sexually explicit.

There is no common since where the law is concerned, only absolutes and blanket rules.
Click to expand...

Read the law and then explain to me such a scenario please.
 
tecoyah said:
The only thing that makes sense in the context of the conversation, would be he considers himself a "Sicko" and thinks only 1% agree with him.
Click to expand...

Care to explain your stance? How have you arrived at this conclusion, lol?
 
Gipper said:
This thread is starting to reek of thoughtcrime. Next you women will want to arrest the foot fetish guy lurking around the Pic-way.
Click to expand...


Seriously?

One can only assume your understanding of personal privacy is somewhat....inclusive of violating women.

Would you feel it acceptable for someone to post an Anthony Weiner of you that they somehow took while you were changing at the Gym?
 
KevinKohler said:
No, but it was implied that having naked pictures of my babies, or bath fun videos, somehow compromises their safety.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Who's to say? But anyway, I wouldn't want some sick dude masturbating to a picture of my baby's butt, so I wouldn't have those pictures out in public viewing.
 
KevinKohler said:
THIS is more like it. MUCH better than the other one posted. Less wriggle room, less open to interpretation.

I can be behind this 100%.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that.
 
ChrisL said:
Read the law and then explain to me such a scenario please.
Click to expand...

I could still argue about the extent of expectation of privacy, and where such expectations should exists, but they'd be weak as hell. The latest law you posted I can agree with.
 
tecoyah said:
Seriously?

One can only assume your understanding of personal privacy is somewhat....inclusive of violating women.

Would you feel it acceptable for someone to post an Anthony Weiner of you that they somehow took while you were changing at the Gym?
Click to expand...

It's unacceptable if they post an Anthony Weiner of me. It's acceptable if they post an Anthony JockeyShorts of me.
 
KevinKohler said:
Care to explain your stance? How have you arrived at this conclusion, lol?
Click to expand...

Sure...no problem.

She said.

Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL

You never know who's a "sicko." It's not always so obvious.
Click to expand...

You said.

I refuse to change my lifestyle and way of being, and live in fear of less than 1% of the population.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you feel your lifestyle would need to be changed.



Why would that be?
 
ChrisL said:
Maybe, maybe not. Who's to say? But anyway, I wouldn't want some sick dude masturbating to a picture of my baby's butt, so I wouldn't have those pictures out in public viewing.
Click to expand...

I don't either, but sharing their lives with my friends and family is more important to me and my wife, especially for both our parents, than my concern for the potential of a sicko whacking it to an image posted online.
 
Gipper said:
It's unacceptable if they post an Anthony Weiner of me. It's acceptable if they post an Anthony JockeyShorts of me.
Click to expand...

At least your position is clear....I simply do not agree with it.

Thank you for finally answering a direct question.
 
tecoyah said:
Sure...no problem.

She said.



You said.



Obviously, you feel your lifestyle would need to be changed.



Why would that be?
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, lol.

All I mean is, there are sickos out there, but I'm not going to let that statistically small potential sway my actions.


Kinda like a woman knowing there are rapists on the prowl but still wearing a skirt or other provocative clothing.

Or like how women know there is a trend called up skirting, but refusing to let that sway their wardrobe decisions.
 
Gipper said:
It's unacceptable if they post an Anthony Weiner of me. It's acceptable if they post an Anthony JockeyShorts of me.
Click to expand...

What if you had on a pair of nut huggers, and have a jungle of hair down there, bursting out of the undies, and someone's gets a shot of it up your shorts, face books that image, and includes a face shot to go with it? Next day at the office, your curly jungle has circulated to all of your coworkers.



Still kosher?
 
Last edited:
tecoyah said:
At least your position is clear....I simply do not agree with it.

Thank you for finally answering a direct question.
Click to expand...

My stance has been clear the entire thread:

1) Legal or not, it's a sleazy action.

2) There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Now if a dude physically hikes up a woman's skirt, all bets are off. That's a crime.

3) Underwear is NOT NUDITY. If he does this to a chick who's airing out the stank that day, it's illegal. Trying to see what color secret Victoria has that day is not.
 
KevinKohler said:
What if you had on a pair of nut huggers, and have a jungle of hair down there, bursting out of the undies, and someone's gets a shot of it up your shorts, face books that image, and includes a face shot to go with it? Next day at the office, your curly jungle has circulated to all of your coworkers.



Still kosher?
Click to expand...

I just ordered lunch, you dick. :D

And sure. I could deal with the "dude, you gotta mow that lawn" chuckles around the office.
 
As I understand the law, any photograph is considered legal if the photographer is either on his own property or on public property when taken. Many states have added EXCEPTIONS to their laws but the core of the law is if you're in public, you forfeit your right not to been seen by others, which includes being photographed. TV reporters have to be trained in understanding these laws, which is why they can chase someone down the sidewalk while asking questions but cannot do so on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Absent exceptions to the law in same states, the onus is on each person to conceal whatever they don't want seen by others in public or stay home.

In my state there was a case where a peeping Tom was watching women use the restroom at a convenience store. The restroom had an oddly placed window and from the right angle you apparently could see right in. Because he was doing so from a public place; sidewalk or parking lot, the courts rules he wasn't breaking the law reasoning anyone walking down the sidewalk would have seen the same thing and being outdoors in a public place and having sight as not a crime.
 
Smeagol said:
As I understand the law, any photograph is considered legal if the photographer is either on his own property or on public property when taken. Many states have added EXCEPTIONS to their laws but the core of the law is if you're in public, you forfeit your right not to been seen by others, which includes being photographed. TV reporters have to be trained in understanding these laws, which is why they can chase someone down the sidewalk while asking questions but cannot do so on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Absent exceptions to the law in same states, the onus is on each person to conceal whatever they don't want seen by others in public or stay home.

In my state there was a case where a peeping Tom was watching women use the restroom at a convenience store. The restroom had an oddly placed window and from the right angle you apparently could see right in. Because he was doing so from a public place; sidewalk or parking lot, the courts rules he wasn't breaking the law reasoning anyone walking down the sidewalk would have seen the same thing and being outdoors in a public place and having sight as not a crime.
Click to expand...

Post a link please. I'm skeptical to say the least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom