• 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!

Texas law against improper photography ruled unconstitutional

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
HOUSTON (KTRK) --
The Harris County District Attorney's office is reviewing cases following a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision that tossed out part of the law banning improper photography in public places.

By an 8-1 vote Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision of an intermediate state appeals court, ruling that the state ban on "improper photography" is too broad and violated First Amendment free-speech rights.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings on this. I can't stand perverts who use their cameras to take pictures of people in public for the purpose of sexual gratification, but the problem here is determining what is on a person's mind when he takes a picture. Accusing someone of a sex crime, based on pictures he or she took in public, is to assume that sexual gratification was the reason, even though you have no idea what that person is thinking. That, folks, is prosecution for a "thought crime" that might not even exist, and of course this should be unconstitutional. This ruling, BTW, does not affect the prosecution of scumbags who take pictures of women in bathrooms, where an expection of privacy does exist. Those POS can rot in prison, preferably in the general population.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
I would say that the expectation of privacy also extends to what's below a woman's skirt.
 
danarhea said:
I have mixed feelings on this. I can't stand perverts who use their cameras to take pictures of people in public for the purpose of sexual gratification, but the problem here is determining what is on a person's mind when he takes a picture. Accusing someone of a sex crime, based on pictures he or she took in public, is to assume that sexual gratification was the reason, even though you have no idea what that person is thinking. That, folks, is prosecution for a "thought crime" that might not even exist, and of course this should be unconstitutional. This ruling, BTW, does not affect the prosecution of scumbags who take pictures of women in bathrooms, where an expection of privacy does exist. Those POS can rot in prison, preferably in the general population.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Another problem I have: who defines what is improper or not?
 
Lutherf said:
I would say that the expectation of privacy also extends to what's below a woman's skirt.
Click to expand...

That's not affected by the law either. Cameras taking pictures up womens' skirts are still illegal.
 
Lutherf said:
I would say that the expectation of privacy also extends to what's below a woman's skirt.
Click to expand...

What skirt?

The ruling came in the Bexar County case of Ronald Thompson, who had been awaiting trial on 26 counts of improper photography. He was charged with photographing women at a water park wearing bikinis and bathing suits of various styles and colors, each described in computer images as an "unknown female."
Click to expand...
 
Well, now I'm a little confused. They were arresting people in TX for taking pictures of other people just hanging out? There was no extraordinary effort to get the pictures and the likenesses weren't being used for commercial purposes?
 
So, you have the right to take pictures, but you don't have the right to choose not to have your picture taken.
 
Erod said:
So, you have the right to take pictures, but you don't have the right to choose not to have your picture taken.
Click to expand...

if you are out in a public place then you have no expectation of privacy. that also includes going to the swimming pool.
however taking pictures of someone in a swimsuit can't be considered indecent.
 
What is and is not improper photography in a public setting is a bit subjective.
I don't know if the law expanded on the definition, but if as stated it sounds too vague.
 
danarhea said:
I have mixed feelings on this.
Click to expand...
I don't.

If you're in public, you have no expectation of, or right to, privacy. Public bathroom, yes, no question. In a park, wearing a bikini? Nope.

Along similar lines, if you leave your window shades up and blinds open, you are also reducing your expectations of privacy. You may not like the idea that your neighbor is staring at you with binoculars, but it is their right to do so -- and your obligation to pull the blinds if you want privacy.

You are welcome to call the observer unethical. But there is no basis to declare their actions illegal.
 
Lutherf said:
I would say that the expectation of privacy also extends to what's below a woman's skirt.
Click to expand...
Sure... as long as she keeps her skirt on.

But if she's on a public beach and in a bikini, she no longer has that expectation.
 
It was probably designed to go after the pervs that hang around playgrounds, schools and beaches to take pictures of the little girls. We had one longtime pedophile up here who used to go to the kids' games, upset quite a few folks but nothing could be done [legally].
 
Erod said:
So, you have the right to take pictures, but you don't have the right to choose not to have your picture taken.
Click to expand...
If you're in public, you can object to having your photo taken, but that carries no legal force.

You can object to your image being used for commercial purposes without your permission, unless you are a public figure, or are doing something "newsworthy."

You cannot legally stop someone who is taking a photograph for non-commercial or personal use, even if the intended use is prurient.
 
ludin said:
if you are out in a public place then you have no expectation of privacy. that also includes going to the swimming pool.
however taking pictures of someone in a swimsuit can't be considered indecent.
Click to expand...

What about a child being washed of salt water? One is OK? Do 300 constitute pornography and what about a collection of photos of naked children?

At what point does the state have the right to intervene on the side of the victim? If they have the right to arrest based on suspicious behavior in other crimes, they should be allowed to investigate here. If the photographer is shown to have a collection of photos of children in suggestive settings, what then?

It's kind of too late once the filth has been posted on the internet..
 
danarhea said:
I have mixed feelings on this. I can't stand perverts who use their cameras to take pictures of people in public for the purpose of sexual gratification, but the problem here is determining what is on a person's mind when he takes a picture. Accusing someone of a sex crime, based on pictures he or she took in public, is to assume that sexual gratification was the reason, even though you have no idea what that person is thinking. That, folks, is prosecution for a "thought crime" that might not even exist, and of course this should be unconstitutional. This ruling, BTW, does not affect the prosecution of scumbags who take pictures of women in bathrooms, where an expection of privacy does exist. Those POS can rot in prison, preferably in the general population.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Yeah; the wholething seems to center arund a known sex offender taking pictures that could be construed as as stalking I would suppose, and on that front I'm for keeping an eye on such people. Now with respect to the general public and pictues or videos, I think such a law goes over the top and is in violation of the 1st Amendment. The biggest part of the problem is when the powers try to cross over and include the general public.
 
Does a picture of someone require a "model release" for that picture to be used for commercial purposes? Wouldn't cover the private perv situation but someone seeking to make money off it, perhaps.
 
Fearandloathing said:
What about a child being washed of salt water? One is OK? Do 300 constitute pornography and what about a collection of photos of naked children?

At what point does the state have the right to intervene on the side of the victim? If they have the right to arrest based on suspicious behavior in other crimes, they should be allowed to investigate here. If the photographer is shown to have a collection of photos of children in suggestive settings, what then?

It's kind of too late once the filth has been posted on the internet..
Click to expand...

There is no victim, especially if the photos where taken in public space and not used commercially. The way to prevent children from having their pictures taken in a public space naked, is not to have them be naked. You have NO expectation of privacy in a public setting.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Does a picture of someone require a "model release" for that picture to be used for commercial purposes? .
Click to expand...

Yes, even if the image was made in public. I know of a case in which a photographer sold an image of kids on a carousel which was used in a brochure. Both the photographer and the publisher of the brochure were successfully sued by the father of one of the children on the carousel.
 
Fearandloathing said:
What about a child being washed of salt water? One is OK? Do 300 constitute pornography and what about a collection of photos of naked children?

At what point does the state have the right to intervene on the side of the victim? If they have the right to arrest based on suspicious behavior in other crimes, they should be allowed to investigate here. If the photographer is shown to have a collection of photos of children in suggestive settings, what then?

It's kind of too late once the filth has been posted on the internet..
Click to expand...

now we begin the slippery slope. child pornograph has a specific definition.
i don't see how being at the beach or in a swim suit is suggestive settings.

putting a child in a suggestive setting is already part of the definition of child pornography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom