• 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.
I said it earlier in the discussion on the case here, there is what is known as "attempt to photograph nudity or partial nudity" (and that was what this person was charged with). In all likelihood, a person who placed a camera in a public restroom or who was snapping pictures under stall doors would be charged with this, even if no one was actually nude in their photos because the attempt was made. It is about an attempt to do this from a reasonable person standpoint. Would the man simply have deleted a pic he got if it did show nudity? If the answer is "no" (and a reasonable person can easily conclude that it would be), then he was attempting to photograph nudity or partial nudity (without permission) and should be guilty under that law. Just because he failed in those three attempts where complaints were made, doesn't mean he wasn't attempting to do so.
 
Hence the laws we have so that person will be separated from other people. People who cannot control their impulses to violate another person, man, woman or child, against their will or without their knowledge are dangerous people who need to be separated from the rest of us who respect a human being's free will.

Like I said, if a woman (or man) is running around with her/his gentalia hanging out, then it is in public view and no longer private. However, positioning a camera so that it is taking pictures inside of a person's clothing is now against the law in Massachusetts (and quite a few other states) as it should be.

It's quite obvious these women did NOT want some strange man shoving a camera up their dresses because they tried to file charges against him. Unfortunately the way the law was written it didn't cover such things, but that has been fixed now, and I am happy for that.

I don't intend for my car to get stolen when I drive at night through strange neighborhoods.
 
I don't intend for my car to get stolen when I drive at night through strange neighborhoods.

Oh, well I guess that would be your fault for driving a nice car. :mrgreen:
 
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

What a hopeless skag she is, but that's how she used to make money. Not so much anymore.
 
The bottom line is this: Not all of society plays by your rules. When you operate in a society based on "should", you're leaving out various (yet obvious) elements.

I should be able to drive a Ferrari through the east side of Detroit at night. That doesn't mean I would, or that it's advisable. Just having a 6 figure car doesn't give others permission to jack my car at gunpoint, but to ignore that it happens because "that isn't right" is deluded as all hell.
Obviously it would be highly dangerous for a woman dressed (undressed?) to show off, depending on area, to walk through a dark alley.

But I operation on shoulds. Hell the entire society we live in operates on shoulds, really.

Whether it is actually dangerous to do something does not, IMO, mean that we shouldn't try and change things so it no longer is. Or demand that such be considered wrong.

And sure as HELL it doesn't mean a woman is even partially responsible when some disturbed individual sticks his cell phone under her skirt, or whatever.
 
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.

I don't see anyone here arguing the extreme view against you. When taking a picture requires getting abnormally close to a non-censenting subject so the photographer can get a shot of clothes or a body part that is not ordinarilly visible it is an invasion of the subject's personal space and privacy.
 
It is where even nice girls in modern times. just show pizza delivery persons what they are about, for fun and practice; and, maybe even to get to know each other better.
Not sure how that's at ALL related to the topic though.
 
they get nude to receive the pizza.
Again, how related?

Edit: Also, why does this sound like the "plot" for a stereotypical porn film?
 
Tangentally, it is about people with a job to do, doing their job regardless of what women may be doing. Not too many complaints from the guy's side of the isle.
 
Inside Edition Weekend just had a segment on this and noted the legislature made it illegal a day after the ruling.

they had a video of some scumbag doing it-its too bad the victim didn't turn around and kick the asshole in the face

really hard!
 
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.

The guy is just being impatient. What he should have done is just waited for her to get into her car with that short get up and he would have had a clear shot of her "business".

Wouldn't that be legal?
 
I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Yes you do and here's your previous post to show it ...
I don't care HOW short her skirt is, and if you get an accidental beaver or panties shot, that doesn't mean ANYTHING.
I'm talking about woman wearing short skirts and showing their panties to anyone who happens to be in the line of site. I've never put a phone under a woman's skirt - nor do I enjoy such photo's - but I've still seen LOT'S of woman's panties in public.


Putting a camera up a lady's skirt is NOT plain sight.
At what angle from horizontal (and from what point are you measuring the angle!) does "plain sight" no longer apply?



If I bend over to retrieve a pen I've dropped and see your panties is that supposed to be illegal now?

If you bend over to retrieve a pen and I see your bra is that illegal now? (- and which of us is breaking the law????)

If you're wearing a short skirt and buckle your shoe and I see your panties is that illegal now? (- and, again, which of us is breaking the law????)



If I'm 6'6" and you're 5'2" with a low-cut blouse and your bra is plainly visible to me can't I take a picture of that since it is obviously in plain sight?

The same works the other way. If I'm 5'2" and you're 6'2" (yes, I've known a couple of women that tall) and wearing a short skirt and I can plainly see your panties can't I take a picture of that since it's in plain sight?
 
Last edited:
To me at least, the issue here has nothing at all to do with what a woman is wearing. If she decides to dress in such a way that is revealing that is her prerogative and she KNOWS what she is showing. If she decides to dress in such a way that she is comfortable but modest...she is choosing NOT to show people what is covered and to remove this choice is simply wrong.

Obviously, ANYONE slipping a camera under her skirt does so with the motive of violating her privacy and feeding a rather disgusting fetish.
 
We can manage to have laws that say you cannot walk down the street with inadequate clothes on without difficulty. That these rules are different on the beach to the town center is also easy.
Nudity and partial nudity are well documented definitions. Your attempts don't come close to being a good definition of anything. Try defining "flirty" and you'll find it's just not as simple as you'd like it to be. I refer you to Hustler Magazine v. Falwell as an example of how far-reaching and deep the law can get. Hustler's position was defended not only from the pornographic industry but also world renowned newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post among many others.


And, no, in America (with a couple of extremely rare and well marked exceptions) you can wear the same thing walking down a New York or LA street that you wear at the beach. Bikini's are not "nudity" of any kind, anywhere. You think this was taken at the beach?

And it wouldn't make any difference if she didn't have the coat.
 
I don't see anyone here arguing the extreme view against you. When taking a picture requires getting abnormally close to a non-censenting subject so the photographer can get a shot of clothes or a body part that is not ordinarilly visible it is an invasion of the subject's personal space and privacy.
Personal space?!? :lol: Yeah, try defining THAT in a law book! People seem to have no clue. I'd really like to see the long, long list of exceptions you'd have to add to your "personal space" law because it would be a doosey.


And "privacy" in a public venue is just as insane. What kind of privacy or personal space do you expect on a crowded subway/bus? If you want to knee-jerk to "up-skirt", that hasn't been well defined as yet, so it's not an option for your answer.
 
Last edited:
The guy is just being impatient. What he should have done is just waited for her to get into her car with that short get up and he would have had a clear shot of her "business".

Wouldn't that be legal?
Exactly!

And, yes, as far as I know it would be legal and it's the exact point I've been trying to make for pages, now.
 
What if martians landed on Earth, and their genitalia was on their faces and never covered? Would it be illegal to take pictures...................


Some of you guys, I swear..... :roll:

I take heart that

#1) at least 80% of the poll respondents here are intelligent enough to understand the reality of what "upskirting" is

#2) only a bit less than 6% of poll responses shows something a bit disturbing
 
Yes you do and here's your previous post to show it ... I'm talking about woman wearing short skirts and showing their panties to anyone who happens to be in the line of site. I've never put a phone under a woman's skirt - nor do I enjoy such photo's - but I've still seen LOT'S of woman's panties in public.

What the hell is wrong with you? I said, as you quoted, it doesn't mean ANYTHING. IOW if someone is exposed, that it doesn't really matter. Is anyone home? My God!

At what angle from horizontal (and from what point are you measuring the angle!) does "plain sight" no longer apply?

OMG, so thick! Plain sight is plain sight genius. If you have to angle your camera in a manner to see something that your eyes couldn't see unless you stuck your head up her dress . . . Really, this isn't difficult to understand at ALL. A child could grasp this concept.

If I bend over to retrieve a pen I've dropped and see your panties is that supposed to be illegal now?

If you bend over to retrieve a pen and I see your bra is that illegal now? (- and which of us is breaking the law????)

If you're wearing a short skirt and buckle your shoe and I see your panties is that illegal now? (- and, again, which of us is breaking the law????)



If I'm 6'6" and you're 5'2" with a low-cut blouse and your bra is plainly visible to me can't I take a picture of that since it is obviously in plain sight?

The same works the other way. If I'm 5'2" and you're 6'2" (yes, I've known a couple of women that tall) and wearing a short skirt and I can plainly see your panties can't I take a picture of that since it's in plain sight?

This is just so idiotic, I don't think it deserves a response. Look, go take your pictures. I hope you get kicked in the head.
 
Hey ChrisL, will I get arrested if I watch Basic Instinct and don't avert my eyes during that famous uncrossing and recrossing of the legs scene????

herp_derp.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom