• 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.
MoSurveyor said:
GUYS DON'T NEED TO STICK THE CAMERA UNDER THE SHORT SKIRT TO TAKE A PIC OF THE PANTIES!

That's the point. I've seen plenty of "beaver shots" in my time to know that a short skirt will almost always end up showing the panties. Some woman can pull that act off but most can't. At some point or other their panties will be visible and it doesn't require a camera under the skirt to see them.
Click to expand...

Don't you know the difference between something being in "plain view" and when someone puts a camera up a skirt or dress - that is NOT in plain view! I don't care HOW short her skirt is, and if you get an accidental beaver or panties shot, that doesn't mean ANYTHING.
 
ChrisL said:
What's the point? I don't see any points here at all.
Click to expand...
Women wear short skirts which will (more than likely) show their panties. Yet women want to whine about some guy taking a pic of said panties. You'll have to excuse me if I find that amusing. :lol:
 
MoSurveyor said:
You're just replacing one word with a different word denoting the same concept. It still doesn't wash, legally.


In a court of law? Yes, everything needs to be explicitly worded. Haven't you seen lawyers fighting over the difference between 'a' and 'the' or with a comma or not? :lol: They'll argue over anything unless the wording is virtually unambiguous - and sometimes they'll argue anyway!


I can understand the frustration. For example, there's a big difference (to me) between someone using a backhoe in the middle of the day and someone cranking up their stereo in the middle of the day. But legally there's no real difference. Both are covered under noise laws and the backhoe is just as loud if not louder than the 'music'. So, while I really dislike the guy next door (in our OLD neighborhood, thank goodness!) craning up his music during the day, there isn't much I can do about it. Arguably, it's no worse than someone using construction equipment. *shrug*

The same applies here. Tim the plumber is trying to pin down "flirty" behavior but women intentionally and unintentionally "flash" their panties all the time. I couldn't count the number of (probably not intentional) "beaver shots" I've seen in my lifetime. How are you going to legally tell the difference between a woman who accidentally flashes from one who doesn't? I mean, if a woman wears a short skirt and "happens" to flash, isn't it still intentional? Otherwise, why would she be wearing the short skirt?
Click to expand...

That's why human judges and juries have the ability to make judgements.

It's easy if you take your lawyer head off.
 
Tim the plumber said:

That's why human judges and juries have the ability to make judgements.

It's easy if you take your lawyer head off.
Click to expand...
If you can't define behavior such that I know when I'm breaking the law then you have accomplished nothing and created no law. The same system that gives you the right to take a video of a public fight or a parent hugging a child in public also gives others the right to take a video (from behind) of a woman's ass in a bikini walking down the beach. Religious zealots will approve of one and call the other a sin but that doesn't make either of them wrong.


No, it's not easy. I'm sure you'd like to believe that but it really isn't. What you and most others arguing your same point are trying to do is legislate morality. That almost never works.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Don't you know the difference between something being in "plain view" and when someone puts a camera up a skirt or dress - that is NOT in plain view! I don't care HOW short her skirt is, and if you get an accidental beaver or panties shot, that doesn't mean ANYTHING.
Click to expand...
I have no clue what "plain view" is supposed to mean. I always thought it meant "without moving anything to see it". I know that's (basically) what it means when policeman is in your house without a search warrant. If you've got illegal drugs "in plain view" they can act. If they have to open a drawer to see them, then they can't. Up skirt photos require no physical contact - no drawer has to be opened.

Will I be hauled off to jail if some woman with a low neck line leans over in front of me??? (I can almost guarantee I'll look as will most men.) How about staring at a pair of hard nipples through a T-shirt? Do you want that to be illegal, too?


Are you now wanting to outlaw taking pictures of accidents?
Or are you saying it's OK to take the picture if it's a "legitimate" (whatever you think that means!) beaver shot?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Women wear short skirts which will (more than likely) show their panties. Yet women want to whine about some guy taking a pic of said panties. You'll have to excuse me if I find that amusing. :lol:
Click to expand...

There's nothing amusing about it. Like others have said, it could be a 12-year-old girl. Still think it's "funny?"
 
MoSurveyor said:
Are you now wanting to outlaw taking pictures of accidents?
Click to expand...

Typical BS from you. Where did I say that. Please post a specific post where I said anything like that.
 
Don't worry, you can still take your pervy pictures so you can jack off later, losers. Just keep your damn cameras out from between unsuspecting ladies legs pigs.
 
ChrisL said:
There's nothing amusing about it. Like others have said, it could be a 12-year-old girl. Still think it's "funny?"
Click to expand...
The question of children falls under different laws than adults. Children aren't legally responsible for most of their actions. Adults are almost always responsible for their (the adult's) actions.


We've been down this road already with respect to children and the result was a different set of laws that dealt specifically with what could and could not be photographed with children. When I was a child it was common for parents to take a pic of their baby, nude on their stomach with their bare butt showing. In fact, it wasn't really uncommon for a mother to pull down a small child's pants in public and spank them. You can't post stuff like that on Facebook, today.


This seems to be a recurring behavior for you, though. You jump to teens or children to justify your position with respect to adults. It's not the same thing nor will it ever be the same thing.
 
ChrisL said:
Typical BS from you. Where did I say that. Please post a specific post where I said anything like that.
Click to expand...
ChrisL said:
I don't care HOW short her skirt is, and if you get an accidental beaver or panties shot, that doesn't mean ANYTHING.
Click to expand...
MoSurveyor said:
Are you now wanting to outlaw taking pictures of accidents?
Or are you saying it's OK to take the picture if it's a "legitimate" (whatever you think that means!) beaver shot?
Click to expand...
So which is it? Is taking a picture of an accident "that doesn't mean ANYTHING" going to be illegal?

OR

Is it OK to take a picture of the accident "that doesn't mean ANYTHING"?


Keep in mind, this "accident" IS in plain sight.
 
Dragonfly said:
Look, nobody is saying taking this picture will now become illegal:

naked_cowboy_04.jpg


Neither will taking this photo:
cabo-beach-girls.jpg


Neither will taking this photo:
lady-gaga-022111-1sJPG_400_1000_0_85_1_50_50.jpg


This guy however -
upskirt01.jpg
Click to expand...

How do you know that? Where in the statute does it specifically limit what kinds of instances?
 
Dragonfly said:
See this lady here:

article_2181968_145212_EF000005_DC_963_634x425.jpg



all her fault.....she's asking for this kind of behavior. The guy - well he's obviously the victim here.
Click to expand...

She's not "asking for it", but to say that she bears no responsibility is just naive, if not plain stupid.
 
MoSurveyor said:
So which is it? Is taking a picture of an accident "that doesn't mean ANYTHING" going to be illegal?

OR

Is it OK to take a picture of the accident "that doesn't mean ANYTHING"?


Keep in mind, this "accident" IS in plain sight.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Putting a camera up a lady's skirt is NOT plain sight.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Putting a camera up a lady's skirt is NOT plain sight.
Click to expand...

As short as many of the skirts pictured in this thread are, I'd argue otherwise.

If your skirt goes above the knees several inches, be prepared to share Victoria's Secret.
 
Gipper said:
As short as many of the skirts pictured in this thread are, I'd argue otherwise.

If your skirt goes above the knees several inches, be prepared to share Victoria's Secret.
Click to expand...

That is utterly stupid beyond belief.
 
Gipper said:
She's not "asking for it", but to say that she bears no responsibility is just naive, if not plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Would she bear responsibility if he'd raped her instead?
 
Gipper said:
Hardly. You're just shirking responsibility...like so many women.
Click to expand...

How are the actions of some perv MY responsibility? What? He isn't responsible for his own stupidity? Good, I hope he likes getting a 2-inch heel to the face.
 
ChrisL said:
How are the actions of some perv MY responsibility? What? He isn't responsible for his own stupidity? Good, I hope he likes getting a 2-inch heel to the face.
Click to expand...

The fact that you cannot see it means that you're not ready for many things.

Never your fault. You sure you're not liberal?
 
Gipper said:
Daylight in a convenience store? No.
Click to expand...

Oh? What if it was night time outside? Good Lord, you CANNOT be serious. Perhaps you're another one of those "women should cover their bodies because men can't contain themselves" bull****ters?
 
Gipper said:
The fact that you cannot see it means that you're not ready for many things.

Never your fault. You sure you're not liberal?
Click to expand...

I can't help it if you views towards women are in line with those of hard core extremists.
 
Gipper said:
She's not "asking for it", but to say that she bears no responsibility is just naive, if not plain stupid.
Click to expand...

So you actually believe that a woman deciding to wear a skirt to the store....bears some level of responsibility for the guy behind her in line deciding to sneak a picture up her clothing?

You seem to hold a very unique understanding of social norms and personal privacy.....one might even refer to it as warped.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh? What if it was night time outside? Good Lord, you CANNOT be serious. Perhaps you're another one of those "women should cover their bodies because men can't contain themselves" bull****ters?
Click to expand...

At night in a strange neighborhood? Yes, she bears some responsibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom