• 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.
Dragonfly said:
It won't - but that's not the point now is it?
Click to expand...

According to you, it is. I defend smokers' rights and I have never lit up in my life (except cigars).

This is about you and other women thinking that their fruit of the looms are holy sanctuary.
 
Eric7216 said:
Merely responding to your post, which was:

Sorry. Didn't realize that I had to read 31 pages of posting and google before responding. But my post still stands and is factual. It wasn't illegal and now it is after Mass. did what I said.
Massachusetts OKs Bill Outlawing 'Upskirt' Photos - ABC News
Click to expand...

You only had to read 29 pages of posts to see this:

Dragonfly said:
'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law - CNN.com




That was quick. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


;)
 
Gipper said:
According to you, it is. I defend smokers' rights and I have never lit up in my life (except cigars).

This is about you and other women thinking that their fruit of the looms are holy sanctuary.
Click to expand...


No - this is about you blaming victims rather than where it really belongs.
 
Gipper said:
According to you, it is. I defend smokers' rights and I have never lit up in my life (except cigars).

This is about you and other women thinking that their fruit of the looms are holy sanctuary.
Click to expand...

I am male....and will clearly state my wife's fruit is very much a "Holy Sanctuary".

I will also state for the record, that ANY man who decided to slip a camera under her skirt would rather brutally find out I do not approve.
 
tecoyah said:
I am male....and will clearly state my wife's fruit is very much a "Holy Sanctuary".

I will also state for the record, that ANY man who decided to slip a camera under her skirt would rather brutally find out I do not approve.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't argue if you did. It's an asswipe move and deserves a proportional response. However, he should not go to jail for it. There is no nudity so it's not an exposure issue, there is no privacy since it's public domain, and there's no touching so assault/battery is out the window. All it is...is creepy.
 
WillyPete said:
I never saw so much skin in my life as when I visited Miami, Florida a few years ago (in the winter, no less.) There were no skirts to look up!
Click to expand...

I think you have hit at the problem here. While I would agree that people should not be allowed to take pictures under a woman's skirt, the reasons that I can come up with for not allowing it would also make it such that women would not be allowed to walk around in thongs in public.

Just saying. It's not as simple as it sounds.
 
It's all fun and games until you discover the transvestite. :mrgreen:
 
MildSteel said:
I think you have hit at the problem here. While I would agree that people should not be allowed to take pictures under a woman's skirt, the reasons that I can come up with for not allowing it would also make it such that women would not be allowed to walk around in thongs in public.

Just saying. It's not as simple as it sounds.
Click to expand...

It IS as simple as it sounds.

If somebody is walking around in a thong, they're either nuts, or completely in control of what they want everyone to see.

If they have a skirt or dress on, and you STICK YOUR HAND UP UNDER THEIR SKIRT OR DRESS AND TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF STUFF YOU CAN'T SEE OTHERWISE you're doing something very wrong.

It's REALLY not that difficult.

It's not illegal for you to look at naked pictures of a playboy model, it is illegal for you to photograph her naked in a hotel room with a hidden camera and without her knowledge or consent.

See? Not that difficult.
 
Dragonfly said:
It IS as simple as it sounds.

If somebody is walking around in a thong, they're either nuts, or completely in control of what they want everyone to see.

If they have a skirt or dress on, and you STICK YOUR HAND UP UNDER THEIR SKIRT OR DRESS AND TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF STUFF YOU CAN'T SEE OTHERWISE you're doing something very wrong.

It's REALLY not that difficult.

It's not illegal for you to look at naked pictures of a playboy model, it is illegal for you to photograph her naked in a hotel room with a hidden camera and without her knowledge or consent.

See? Not that difficult.
Click to expand...

Hotel room = private
 
Dragonfly said:
It IS as simple as it sounds.

If somebody is walking around in a thong, they're either nuts, or completely in control of what they want everyone to see.

If they have a skirt or dress on, and you STICK YOUR HAND UP UNDER THEIR SKIRT OR DRESS AND TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF STUFF YOU CAN'T SEE OTHERWISE you're doing something very wrong.

It's REALLY not that difficult.

It's not illegal for you to look at naked pictures of a playboy model, it is illegal for you to photograph her naked in a hotel room with a hidden camera and without her knowledge or consent.

See? Not that difficult.
Click to expand...

You say it's simple, but you have given no reason why. You have just made declarations that its wrong without offering any rationale to why it's wrong. It's the type of thing fanatics tend to do. I'm not saying you are a fanatic, but the point is that you are not saying why it's wrong. And again, when I think it out, the reasons that I can come up with for why it's wrong are also the reasons why it would be wrong for a woman to be in a thong in public.
 
MildSteel said:
You say it's simple, but you have given no reason why. You have just made declarations that its wrong without offering any rationale to why it's wrong. It's the type of thing fanatics tend to do. I'm not saying you are a fanatic, but the point is that you are not saying why it's wrong. And again, when I think it out, the reasons that I can come up with for why it's wrong are also the reasons why it would be wrong for a woman to be in a thong in public.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand the "rationale" for why upskirting a lady/girl is wrong, AND worthy of being an illegal invasion of privacy, then I can't help you.

Also - if you don't understand the difference between what a lady chooses to show you, and what you take from her without her consent and knowledge, then I potentially fear for all the ladies near you.
 
I voted be illegal but I have to admit there are a lot of women out there who love to show off their body and titillate men, especially on the beach.Alot of women wear very tight clothes and skirts that don't even cover their ass....Sadly modesty is a thing of the past.
 
Dragonfly said:
If you don't understand the "rationale" for why upskirting a lady/girl is wrong, AND worthy of being an illegal invasion of privacy, then I can't help you.

Also - if you don't understand the difference between what a lady chooses to show you, and what you take from her without her consent and knowledge, then I potentially fear for all the ladies near you.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's just what fanatics do, you ask them to do some thinking and they just can't do it. Then you become the demon. That's a large part of what's wrong with the world today. People don't think.

It's sad.
 
MildSteel said:
Yep, that's just what fanatics do, you ask them to do some thinking and they just can't do it. Then you become the demon. That's a large part of what's wrong with the world today. People don't think.

It's sad.
Click to expand...

Fanatics?

Since when is defending a person's right to privacy being a fanatic???
 
ChrisL said:
As much as I'd like to disagree, I cannot. I'm really wanting to move out of Massachusetts. It's a horrible state to live in IMO.
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Dragonfly said:
Fanatics?

Since when is defending a person's right to privacy being a fanatic???
Click to expand...

Defending the right to privacy is not fanatical. Putting forth edicts and then when asked to supply a rationale resorting to demonizing the person asking for a rationale. That's one reason why I stopped going to church. That's the kind of stuff people would do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom