Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 76

Thread: Upskirt Photography, (or a voyeur and his art)

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor AthenaAwakened's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Right behind you so ... BOO!
    Posts
    5,226
    Archived
    15,479
    Total Posts
    20,705
    Rep Power
    67

    Upskirt Photography, (or a voyeur and his art)

    Today is a glorious day for a one Christopher Hunt Cleveland, an all-American hero who just wanted to take upskirt photos of women at a national monument without having a bunch of no-fun freedom-haters stand in his way. Though he was arrested in June 2013 and charged with two counts of attempted voyeurism when U.S. Park Police spotted him at the Lincoln Memorial surreptitiously taking pictures of the “private parts” of women seated on the memorial steps, he has been found guilty of, well, nothing.
    D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet J. McKenna ruled that the women “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a public place and that they had positioned themselves in ways that made there intimate areas visible to any other passerby,” as The Washington Post reported. Her ruling states that “There is no evidence Mr. Cleveland positioned his camera in any way or employed photographic techniques or illumination, so as to capture images that were not already on public display.” This, even though officers who detained Cleveland found hundreds of “comparable shots from other outings” on a computer stored in Cleveland’s car.
    Less than a month ago, a Texas Court issued much the same ruling, striking down a law that would ban upskirt photos on the grounds that it “would be a violation of federal free-speech rights and a ‘paternalistic’ effort to regulate the photographers’ thoughts.”
    http://thinkprogress.org/culture/201...ps-for-ladies/

    Expect an upsurge in women channeling the spirit of Joan Crawford and slapping the shit outta people.
    I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.

    The power of the white world is threatened whenever a black man refuses to accept the white world's definitions.

    -- James A. Baldwin

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member Axulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    3,959
    Archived
    10,958
    Total Posts
    14,917
    Rep Power
    64
    Wouldn't these shots be considered pornography? Shouldn't taking pornographic photos without the subject of the photo's consent be illegal regardless if the shots being taken were of unintentional revealings in public? What if he was taking similar pictures of little girls?

  3. Top | #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,839
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,591
    Rep Power
    96
    Ugly, but if it's on public display I don't see that there's grounds to make the photography illegal.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Winter Garden, Florida
    Posts
    1,038
    Archived
    1,496
    Total Posts
    2,534
    Rep Power
    52
    If one wants to take photos up a woman's skirt, one should need her consent to do so. Doing so without her consent, IMO, is a violation of her privacy.

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,891
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,735
    Rep Power
    55
    That seems right. If it's not illegal for a woman to cross her legs in a skirt out in public, and if it's not illegal for someone to see a woman cross her legs in a skirt out in public, then why would it be illegal for someone to digitally capture the woman cross her legs in a skirt out in public. It's the same photons--one scenario uses an artificial lens to capture them and the other a natural lens.

  6. Top | #6
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,749
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,317
    Rep Power
    40
    Last summer, in my neighborhood, a man was arrested at the local water park. He was seen taking surreptitious photos of girls in bathing suits. He seemed to be concentrating on the 11 to 13 year olds. He was arrested for something called video voyeurism, which apparently is a thing in Louisiana. I don't know if he would be in trouble, if he had been brazen about it.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,471
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,445
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Axulus View Post
    Wouldn't these shots be considered pornography? Shouldn't taking pornographic photos without the subject of the photo's consent be illegal regardless if the shots being taken were of unintentional revealings in public? What if he was taking similar pictures of little girls?
    I don't know what these shots look like, but you do not generally have the right to prevent people from looking at you when you're in a public place. By extension, you also don't have the right to stop people photographing or filming you when you're in a public place (although this might vary in place to place e.g. I know it is not legal to sound record conversations in some U.S. states without all parties consenting).

    Are you okay with people's photos being taken without their consent as long as it's not "pornographic"? How are you going to prove a photo is "pornographic"? There's no doubt that pedophiles jerk off to pictures of young children in catalogues and holiday snapshots and who knows what else, and when the pictures were taken there was no pornographic intent at all, they were 'repurposed' (I don't know what else to call it) by the pedophile.

    Basically, if you're putting it on display, you cannot reasonably expect people not to see it, and some of those people are also going to photograph it.

    Having said that, that doesn't mean the behaviour isn't nasty. And my arguments apply only to public places. They don't apply to private spaces in public places (like the toilet) and they don't apply to non-public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,471
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,445
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrell View Post
    If one wants to take photos up a woman's skirt, one should need her consent to do so. Doing so without her consent, IMO, is a violation of her privacy.
    Would you need her consent to look up her skirt?

    If so, doesn't that mean you need everyone's consent to look at them?

  9. Top | #9
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    7,845
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,885
    Rep Power
    82
    I was ready to be outraged, but on reading the details it looks like he was not bending down and aiming up or anything - the women were simply sitting imprudently on their own and he was able to see from where he was sitting. As distasteful as I find his actions to be, the women who were photographed were doing the same thing as a person in a skimpy suit at the beach. It sounds like it was indeed out there to be seen.

    If he had been aiming his camera literally up their skirts I'd be outraged and I also think he'd have lost his defense. But that's not what he was doing, it seems. "Upskirt" seems to be a misnomer, where he was in actuality taking photos "upsteps" at what was in view to anyone sitting on that level.


    So, outrage shelved for an actual invasion of actual privacy.

  10. Top | #10
    Administrator Mumbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,453
    Archived
    5,536
    Total Posts
    6,989
    Rep Power
    49
    I'm all for freedom.

    But in this case, it seems that there is a very strong question of intent. If he was purposefully taking upskirts of women while they were sitting, that's one matter, and I have no issue with him being charged with a crime. But if he were simply taking photos of ...the steps...at the Lincoln Memorial...


    No, wait, there's exactly one memorable step at the Lincoln Memorial. What the hell was I talking about?

Similar Threads

  1. Wildlife Photography
    By RavenSky in forum Hobbies And Crafts
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: 11-03-2019, 07:06 PM
  2. General Photography Thread
    By Jimmy Higgins in forum Hobbies And Crafts
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 11-09-2018, 11:32 PM
  3. UFO Contactee Billy Meier's Creative Photography
    By lpetrich in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-06-2018, 08:33 PM
  4. General photography question for those who wear corrective lenses
    By Toni in forum Miscellaneous Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-11-2017, 06:14 PM
  5. Muslims and dislike of photography.
    By Sarpedon in forum General Religion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-03-2014, 09:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •