• 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.
Gipper said:
Please. Spare the innocent waif routine. To say that you bear no responsibility when you're a stiff breeze away from exposed snatch is just absurd.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now we're back to the "men can't control themselves" argument? Bullcrap!
 
Why are some people such asses?

mug_upskirt1.jpg


This woman's skirt is down to her knees.

wenn5323521.jpg


Blame the woman though.....so easy. :roll:
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Because in a public place there is no expectation of privacy. If I can see it, I can photograph it.
Click to expand...

You can't "see it" unless you have a camera stuck just about between her legs when she's not looking.

My god....how many of you are really this insane????
 
americanwoman said:
Do you have the right to capture a baby in a public restroom that is getting their diaper changed and post it online? There are laws against that, and with upskirting how to do prove the object in the photo is or is not a minor?
Click to expand...

I believe the difference with a restroom is that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, same as dressing room in a department store. Which is why the courts in most jurisdictions do not allow for surveillance cameras in restrooms or inside dressing room stalls even if they public places. But outside on the street, at the beach, on a bus, going up an escalator in a mall, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
Dragonfly said:
You can't "see it" unless you have a camera stuck just about between her legs when she's not looking.

My god....how many of you are really this insane????
Click to expand...

Okay, so lets leave the camera out of the equation for a moment. If someone lays down on the floor and "sees it" is that a crime? If it is then specifically how do you determine that it is a crime? Someone may have passed out and was laying on the ground when the woman stepped over the guys face and he saw "it". I'm not saying it is socially acceptable behavior to take these types of photos, but what is the difference of some guy just gawking at a woman's fully clothed breasts? Some guys will just stand there staring at a woman's chest without even hiding it. There is no law against that--- how could you make a law against that?

Look, the problem with the upskirt photo things is that states have not properly legislated for the conditions which define the intrusion into privacy. A guy hanging out near the bottom of an escalator taking photos is not taking any extra measures to achieve the angle needed for his photo; so I don't see where that could ever be made illegal. Like I said, if you can see it you can photograph it.

Now I think I am pretty reasonable, but it would seem to me that if the law (elements of a crime) included something about "taking extra measures" in order to get the photo, like placing the camera on a pole and aiming it up a woman's skirt, that might be something a court would uphold as being an intrusion of a reasonable expectation of privacy. A guy hanging out at the bottom of the staircase might be difficult to prove was being unreasonable, because he could just say he was taking a photo of people on a staircase. However, a guy with a telescoping robotic arm with a camera snaking its way under the seat of a bus should be easy to prove what his intent was. Usually it is the technology used that causes something to be illegal. If a photo of a woman undressing in her bedroom is taken from the street with a normal camera lens, then that is something you would have seen with your naked eyes anyway, so it is her problem if she exposed herself that way. However if a photographer used a powerful telephoto lens, then the technology would be aiding him to photograph something that really isn't expected to be in public view and that would be an invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
somewhat off-topic, in the 70s my dad had a camera lens that pointed straight ahead but took a picture to the side - the picture-taking part was on the side of the lens. So people didn't know their picture was being taken. Looking back, it seems a little creepy, but as a kid I thought it was cool.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh, so now we're back to the "men can't control themselves" argument? Bullcrap!
Click to expand...

Some can't. You can reduce the likelihood by not leaving loose-hanging cloth as the only thing between his eyes and your snapper.
 
Gipper said:
Some can't. You can reduce the likelihood by not leaving loose-hanging cloth as the only thing between his eyes and your snapper.
Click to expand...

You're an embarrassment to most men you know that?

I can't believe you've made this the fault of women.

Unreal....
 
Dragonfly said:
Not the same thing and you know it.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's take it from there one step at a time.

So why should it be illegal, because you can see her underwear?

If you say because her privacy is violated, then why? Because you can see her underwear?
 
Dragonfly said:
You're an embarrassment to most men you know that?

I can't believe you've made this the fault of women.

Unreal....
Click to expand...

A more apt explanation is that you're just as irrational and irresponsible as many other women.

At NO time did I use the word "fault". There is a difference between fault and responsibility. If you have some chocolate and a bubble bath, I can explain to you if necessary.
 
MildSteel said:
Ok, let's take it from there one step at a time.

So why should it be illegal, because you can see her underwear?

If you say because her privacy is violated, then why? Because you can see her underwear?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? It's a violation because a man is sticking a camera up a woman's skirt for perverted reasons.
 
americanwoman said:
Why because I don't agree with a non parent taking compromising pictures of a child and posting them online? Or because I personally don't take naked pictures of my child and don't care if you as a parent do so? I still frown upon it because the child cannot consent but as a parent in the end it's your decision.

And you are the one suggesting if a grown woman doesn't want to be pictured or raped she should not wear a short skirt in public or no?
Click to expand...

I'm simply using analogies to illuminate the concept that potential for risk shouldn't be the primary determinate of our actions.
 
ChrisL said:
Are you kidding? It's a violation because a man is sticking a camera up a woman's skirt for perverted reasons.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not kidding. What if he isn't sticking his camera up the woman's skirt? You don't have to stick a camera up a woman's skirt to take a picture of what's under her skirt. What if he's standing 20 ft away?

But to the point why is it an invasion of her privacy, because you can see her underwear? That was the point in making a reference to the incident of the woman walking around with her pants half down.
 
Navy Pride said:
Nothing surprises me when it comes to Mass.
Click to expand...


This only became an issue recently due to the advent of compact digital photography. Similar reassessment and modernization of law has taken place for cell phone signal eavesdropping, mp3 music file sharing, satellite TV piracy, employers monitoring employees online activity, etc.
 
lizzie said:
That is really a part of my point. 30 years ago, the vast majority of people would not even have considered this to be acceptable behavior. We would not be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
Forty years ago, I and every other guy in my high school, would occasionally look up when we were going up or down the stairs. Nothing has really changed except almost everyone carries a camera, now, and it's almost impossible to tell when they're using it.
 
Dragonfly said:
Massachusetts court says 'upskirt' photos are legal - CNN.com



WHAT???? How can upskirt photo taking NOT be an invasion of privacy?????
Click to expand...

I don't get how being in your panties isn't 'partially nude' (because that's what the photo is of)

Just - none of this makes sense.

I think they could have ruled 'guilty' and it wouldn't have failed in appellate court, they just didn't want to interpret the law in a way in which it would actually protect someone. Never before was it ever ruled 'okay' to look up skirts - it's just gross behavior and shouldn't be encouraged.

Our country is just so in the toilet it's ridiculous.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I don't get how being in your panties isn't 'partially nude' (because that's what the photo is of)
Click to expand...
The law was describing a state of dress - nude, partially nude, whatever - both of which, I'm sure, are illegal. Would you want someone wearing a skirt or dress to be classified as "partially nude", which also means breaking the law?


And what's your (legal) view about women who wear skirts and intentionally show their panties in various ways? Should they be arrested? Is it OK to take a pic of them? Exactly where do you draw the line?
 
MoSurveyor said:
The law was describing a state of dress - nude, partially nude, whatever - both of which, I'm sure, are illegal. Would you want someone wearing a skirt or dress to be classified as "partially nude", which also means breaking the law?


And what's your (legal) view about women who wear skirts and intentionally show their panties in various ways? Should they be arrested? Is it OK to take a pic of them? Exactly where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

This is a wind up, yeah? If you cannot tell the difference between standing up and taking a photo of a girly getting flirty and a gluing a camera to your shoe and sliding it under a woman's skirt you are not adult.

 
Tim the plumber said:

This is a wind up, yeah? If you cannot tell the difference between standing up and taking a photo of a girly getting flirty and a gluing a camera to your shoe and sliding it under a woman's skirt you are not adult.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I'd say if you feel otherwise then you're not the adult. This is about legality, not morality. Adults deal with laws and they have to apply equally in virtually every situation. You can't put

"It's illegal to take a picture of a woman's underwear if she's wearing a skirt UNLESS she's acting flirty, the it's OK"

in a law book.
 
MoSurveyor said:
On the contrary, I'd say if you feel otherwise then you're not the adult. This is about legality, not morality. Adults deal with laws and they have to apply equally in virtually every situation. You can't put

"It's illegal to take a picture of a woman's underwear if she's wearing a skirt UNLESS she's acting flirty, the it's OK"

in a law book.
Click to expand...
Replace flirty with flashing and you are there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom