• 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.
Yeah I give ya that, babe. If there is any appeal, it goes by the wayside when she's packing and it's 4 degrees outside.

I'm talking when it's hot out in weather where a skirt would be worn. Plus, women who carry a gun like myself, don't advertise it.

I personally don't like crowds of people and will avoid them if at all possible. As you can imagine, there aren't hoards of people in Kansas so a creeper McCreeperson couldn't get close enough to take his pathetic little picture.

I know if I caught someone doing that or attempting to, it'd be on like donkey kong.

What a sad little person who takes pictures like that. Reminds me of when I used to go to the tanning beds years ago. The big hub bub then was sickos creeping around taking videos of women changing.

I figured...hey, it's your funeral **** face. He might see more than he wanted and then then I'd have the last laugh.

Sick people out there....
 
The problem is how would you write the law? I have a right to capture images in the public domain, and it trumps your right to not be embarrassed. But embarrassment doesn't quite cover it, does it? An up skirt shot goes a little further than simple embarrassment. But where do we draw the line between that and being taken advantage of? Without diminishing my photo journalistic rights?

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?
 
Oh let's get serious here - women don't wear bikinis so guys look at their elbows. And if she's showing some taint, then cuff him.

Exactly how do you envision "Cuffing" someone for something generally anonymous and that the woman is unaware of?
 
The problem is how would you write the law? I have a right to capture images in the public domain, and it trumps your right to not be embarrassed. But embarrassment doesn't quite cover it, does it? An up skirt shot goes a little further than simple embarrassment. But where do we draw the line between that and being taken advantage of? Without diminishing my photo journalistic rights?

I don't know, but I DO know that it is illegal in Rhode Island.

Meanwhile, in neighbor Rhode Island, Attorney General Peter Kilmartin’s office told WPRI.com that controversy such as this wouldn’t come up under Ocean State laws.

The Rhode Island law includes a “clad or unclad” clause when defining sexually explicit material, meaning someone can be guilty of video voyeurism whether or not the subject was wearing underwear or not. Convicted voyeurs in Rhode Island can be sentenced to up to three years in prison and fined up to $5,000.
 
Fact is, there are a lot of sticky grey areas in the law, because laws are by their nature "blanket statements".


Sometimes, people need to think for themselves.

Is it wrong to take photos of people who object to such on religious grounds? Yes. Illegal when in public? No.

Was Sally Man an artist, or a creepy old lady who took advantage of her kids?

It's illegal to take video of someone without their knowledge, but not still Fran images. Why?


If someone is taking an upskirt shot of you, break their camera. It's in your personal space.
 
Fact is, there are a lot of sticky grey areas in the law, because laws are by their nature "blanket statements".


Sometimes, people need to think for themselves.

Is it wrong to take photos of people who object to such on religious grounds? Yes. Illegal when in public? No.

Was Sally Man an artist, or a creepy old lady who took advantage of her kids?

It's illegal to take video of someone without their knowledge, but not still Fran images. Why?


If someone is taking an upskirt shot of you, break their camera. It's in your personal space.

No, if the person is not doing something illegal, you cannot assault them or break their property. Then YOU are breaking the law, and YOU will get in trouble. This is the problem.
 
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?
So if I want to post a vid or pic of my sons diaper change, or him in the bath, it's illegal? When did that happen?
 
So if I want to post a vid or pic of my sons diaper change, or him in the bath, it's illegal? When did that happen?

Don't you think "intent" would play a role here? Stop playing games.
 
Oh, I just thought she had a cute *****. :doh
 
No, if the person is not doing something illegal, you cannot assault them or break their property. Then YOU are breaking the law, and YOU will get in trouble. This is the problem.

When someone violates your personal spaces, anything after that is self defense. Having a guy hold a camera between your legs is a violation of personal space.

Simply claim he was trying to grope you. And he was, really, as far as you know.
 
The problem is how would you write the law? I have a right to capture images in the public domain, and it trumps your right to not be embarrassed. But embarrassment doesn't quite cover it, does it? An up skirt shot goes a little further than simple embarrassment. But where do we draw the line between that and being taken advantage of? Without diminishing my photo journalistic rights?

Doesn't the very phrase "upskirt" pretty much define what's being discussed here?

This isn't that difficult is it?

If a woman (gymnast perhaps) is wearing a skirt and decides to do a hand stand on a public street and start walking down the street on her hands, anyone taking a picture of her doing that, with her underwear exposed, isn't breaking any laws.

If anyone sneaks up behind someone else, lowers a camera below the level of a hem line, and points camera up into the crotch area of a totally unsuspecting human being, they'd be breaking the law.


Why is this so difficult?
 
Don't you think "intent" would play a role here? Stop playing games.

Mans that is why laws like this tend to break more than they fix.
 
When someone violates your personal spaces, anything after that is self defense. Having a guy hold a camera between your legs is a violation of personal space.

Simply claim he was trying to grope you. And he was, really, as far as you know.

See, now you obviously think it is wrong. It should not be "legal" and women shouldn't have to resort to this to protect themselves from such a violation of their privacies.
 
Doesn't the very phrase "upskirt" pretty much define what's being discussed here?

This isn't that difficult is it?

If a woman (gymnast perhaps) is wearing a skirt and decides to do a hand stand on a public street and start walking down the street on her hands, anyone taking a picture of her doing that, with her underwear exposed, isn't breaking any laws.

If anyone sneaks up behind someone else, lowers a camera below the level of a hem line, and points camera up into the crotch area of a totally unsuspecting human being, they'd be breaking the law.


Why is this so difficult?

Exactly. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for some to grasp.
 
Doesn't the very phrase "upskirt" pretty much define what's being discussed here?

This isn't that difficult is it?

If a woman (gymnast perhaps) is wearing a skirt and decides to do a hand stand on a public street and start walking down the street on her hands, anyone taking a picture of her doing that, with her underwear exposed, isn't breaking any laws.

If anyone sneaks up behind someone else, lowers a camera below the level of a hem line, and points camera up into the crotch area of a totally unsuspecting human being, they'd be breaking the law.


Why is this so difficult?
I'm sorry, your honor, or officer, I was trying to take a low vantage point shot looking up at a scene, when this woman happened by, walked right into the shot.




Simple answer?



Prove it.
 
Mans that is why laws like this tend to break more than they fix.

What? That's bull. I posted how they have it covered under law in RI.
 
Whitey was incredibly popular in certain areas of Boston, just as Mayor Cianci was in Providence, RI despite his status as a convicted felon. Criminals are the stars in many areas of New England... so long as they're big enough to be able to toss the money around. I meant that the politicians don't want to make them criminals because you seem to need to be some sort of criminal to get elected here in the Communistwealth. See one Kennedy, Edward for confirmation of that.

So now it is down to Whitey's old neighborhood and where his word was literal life or death... that ain't much. like I said, you can't swing a dead cat in anyplace USofA and not hit an old myth or current criminal who was or is 'popular' in his fiefdom. Howsomever that doesn't mean the state likes the gangster... :roll:

Laughing, see ONE? do you read what you post? One doesn't a trend make... name the state that doesn't have 'see one' and name the politician... name the party that doesn't have lawbreakers of every sort and sundry... you will never find contentment in ANY state if your threshold is 'see one'... :doh

As far as convincing your woman of anything, if she is the woman who toes your line of what a good wife is, then she should be halfway packed before you stop to ask which state should we move to. Sorry Dude, this just sounds like the excuses you give for not leaving the USofA.
 
Here is how they handle this type of thing in Rhode Island.

The Rhode Island law includes a “clad or unclad” clause when defining sexually explicit material, meaning someone can be guilty of video voyeurism whether or not the subject was wearing underwear or not. Convicted voyeurs in Rhode Island can be sentenced to up to three years in prison and fined up to $5,000.
 
See, now you obviously think it is wrong. It should not be "legal" and women shouldn't have to resort to this to protect themselves from such a violation of their privacies.

I do think it's wrong. I simply don't see how legislation would help, how it would be enforced, how the law would written, etc.

Now, another state already has such a law on the books, so I'd say just copy theirs.

But it's really a paper tiger. The very nature of this "crime" is to be unnoticed.

I don't know. I see us trying to fix one problem, and in so doing, creating multiple others.
 
I do think it's wrong. I simply don't see how legislation would help, how it would be enforced, how the law would written, etc.

Now, another state already has such a law on the books, so I'd say just copy theirs.

But it's really a paper tiger. The very nature of this "crime" is to be unnoticed.

I don't know. I see us trying to fix one problem, and in so doing, creating multiple others.

Well, Rhode Island and other states don't seem to have a problem with it. I haven't heard you state any specific "problem" that would be created by making it illegal to take pictures up women's skirts. That is kind of just ridiculous.
 
Here is how they handle this type of thing in Rhode Island.

Define sexually explicit, and who brings that accusation?

All this does is create an extra avenue for a disenchanted lover to bring pain on their former significant other.

What if I take some photos at the beach, and one of the beach goers has a wedgie. Sexually explicit? To someone, yes. Some dudes masterbate to images of feet. I should eat 5k fine for my beach photo crime?
 
Define sexually explicit, and who brings that accusation?

All this does is create an extra avenue for a disenchanted lover to bring pain on their former significant other.

What if I take some photos at the beach, and one of the beach goers has a wedgie. Sexually explicit? To someone, yes. Some dudes masterbate to images of feet. I should eat 5k fine for my beach photo crime?

Please, can you not discern the difference between taking a picture of a person walking on the beach, regardless of what is exposed, and coming up behind an unsuspecting woman and sticking a camera under her dress or skirt? Give me a break. You are just arguing for argument's sake.
 
So if I want to post a vid or pic of my sons diaper change, or him in the bath, it's illegal? When did that happen?


As the parent you have certain permissions to video/photograph your child. I know in my state I've had to sign release forms at school and daycare for them to post pictures of my daughter online. Now if a neighbor can see right into your bathroom and also videotapes the bath, that is illegal.

Would you as a parent videotape your child's bath and post it online?
 
As the parent you have certain permissions to video/photograph your child. I know in my state I've had to sign release forms at school and daycare for them to post pictures of my daughter online. Now if a neighbor can see right into your bathroom and also videotapes the bath, that is illegal.

Would you as a parent videotape your child's bath and post it online?

Ugh, my ex-boyfriend's sister had taken a picture of her little daughter getting out of the bathtub with her bare bottom to the camera and had hung in the bathroom because she thought it was "trendy." They are really wealthy yuppies. I told her that she should probably not have that picture displayed like that. Although family and friends who love her might find it endearing, there are TOO many weirdos around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom