- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 7,648
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
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?
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.
You seriously believe that, don't you?
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?
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.
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?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?
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.
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?
Don't you think "intent" would play a role here? Stop playing games.
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.
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.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?
Mans that is why laws like this tend to break more than they fix.
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.
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.
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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?