Texas court throws out anti-'upskirt' photography law for 'violating right to freedom of expression'

A Texas court has thrown out a law prohibiting ‘up the skirt’ photography, on the grounds the previous ruling violated Texas’ citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of expression.

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled 8-1 to strike down part of a law which bans taking images of another person in public without their consent and with the intention to “arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person”, criticising the “paternalistic” intrusion into peoples’ private right to be aroused.

Debjani Roy, deputy director of Hollaback!, a New York-based anti-street harassment group, speaking to the Guardian, claimed the decision was “a huge violation and absolutely appalling that the rights of predators are being valued over the rights of women and girls.”

Halie Ricketts, a victim of an ‘up the skirt’ shot in an Austin mall earlier this year, commented: “Currently the law is protecting the criminals and not the victims”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-court-throws-out-antiupskirt-photography-law-9745800.html

I can see this ruling leading to a lot of unsavory things ...

today's idiocy has been brought to you by the state of Texas.......

can someone, anyone please, in the name of all that's sane, show me how stopping perverted and creeps taking pictures up in women's skirts is protecting the weirdos right to freedom of expression?????

FFS...........pertaining to Didge's other thread, I'm quite ready for Texas to leave (sorry Ben)

Cass wrote:today's idiocy has been brought to you by the state of Texas.......

can someone, anyone please, in the name of all that's sane, show me how stopping perverted and creeps taking pictures up in women's skirts is protecting the weirdos  right to freedom of expression?????

FFS...........pertaining to Didge's other thread, I'm quite ready for Texas to leave (sorry Ben)

It really does beggar belief me Lady.
Maybe Texas should be give back to Mexico?

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:today's idiocy has been brought to you by the state of Texas.......

can someone, anyone please, in the name of all that's sane, show me how stopping perverted and creeps taking pictures up in women's skirts is protecting the weirdos  right to freedom of expression?????

FFS...........pertaining to Didge's other thread, I'm quite ready for Texas to leave (sorry Ben)

It really does beggar belief me Lady.
Maybe Texas should be give back to Mexico?

I'd miss brisket but......if ever you should read Molly Ivins ....she was a great journalist who covered the crazyfest that is formally called the Texas state legislature....this was in the 70s & 80s but by golly it could apply to today.

they can leave after Thanksgiving .....I'm going to see my Grandpa and I don't want to have to renew my passport....

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:



It really does beggar belief me Lady.
Maybe Texas should be give back to Mexico?

I'd miss brisket but......if ever you should read Molly Ivins ....she was a great journalist who covered the crazyfest that is formally called the Texas state legislature....this was in the 70s & 80s but by golly it could apply to today.

they can leave after Thanksgiving .....I'm going to see my Grandpa and I don't want to have to renew my passport....

Not something I have read to be honest me Lady, so thanks for the heads up.

Ahem:

Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, removal of Eurocentric immigration regulations, public television, Head Start, food stamps and much more brought to you by President Lyndon Johnson, of Texas. National poverty rate reduced from 23 percent to 12 percent under his administration. First man to walk on the moon while he was in office.

Johnson is instead reviled as one of the main escalators of the Vietnam War, but he did an awful lot of good too, and the U.S. would undoubtedly be a crueler place without the legislation he signed.

Restored: mirror shots up skirts...



Scottish lassies are relieved.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ahem:

Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, removal of Eurocentric immigration regulations, public television, Head Start, food stamps and much more brought to you by President Lyndon Johnson, of Texas. National poverty rate reduced from 23 percent to 12 percent under his administration. First man to walk on the moon while he was in office.

Johnson is instead reviled as one of the main escalators of the Vietnam War, but he did an awful lot of good too, and the U.S. would undoubtedly be a crueler place without the legislation he signed.

agreed. he did good things (as well as not so good). But Texas has always been known for their jacked up legislation and this is without going into the perils of Perry.....

you know I loves you my squeezy armadillo x

PEOPLE caught "upskirting" over here in the past have been successfully prosecuted under existing "privacy" and "lewd behaviour" laws...

DOES the state of Texas really need a new and separate law aimed at one subset of "invasion of privacy" and "lewd and indecent behaviour" criminal behaviours, when so many other places apparently manage to survive without one ?  

Lone Wolf wrote:

PEOPLE caught "upskirting" over here in the past have been successfully prosecuted under existing "privacy" and "lewd behaviour" laws...

DOES the state of Texas really need a new and separate law aimed at one subset of "invasion of privacy" and "lewd and indecent behaviour" criminal behaviours, when so many other places apparently manage to survive without one ?  

Very good point.

@ Ben--do you have any insights in this direction? If not, perhaps a copy of the law. What does this law say that the ordinary privacy laws do not? That will probably lead us to the Texas' Supreme Court's problem with the law.

Original Quill wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

PEOPLE caught "upskirting" over here in the past have been successfully prosecuted under existing "privacy" and "lewd behaviour" laws...

DOES the state of Texas really need a new and separate law aimed at one subset of "invasion of privacy" and "lewd and indecent behaviour" criminal behaviours, when so many other places apparently manage to survive without one ?  

Very good point.

@ Ben--do you have any insights in this direction?  If not, perhaps a copy of the law.  What does this law say that the ordinary privacy laws do not?  That will probably lead us to the Texas' Supreme Court's problem with the law.

It's frustrating, I can't find any reference to a specific law that the man was charged under. But I think you could make a pretty good argument that clothing is worn to cover parts of your body you don't consent to reveal, and that to strategically photograph as to circumvent that consent barrier is an invasion of privacy. We wouldn't be talking about this if he stuck the camera down her blouse, after all. And doesn't harassment enter into it as well, or are all Texans now obliged to be de facto models for anyone who might find us attractive in public?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Very good point.

@ Ben--do you have any insights in this direction?  If not, perhaps a copy of the law.  What does this law say that the ordinary privacy laws do not?  That will probably lead us to the Texas' Supreme Court's problem with the law.

It's frustrating, I can't find any reference to a specific law that the man was charged under. But I think you could make a pretty good argument that clothing is worn to cover parts of your body you don't consent to reveal, and that to strategically photograph as to circumvent that consent barrier is an invasion of privacy. We wouldn't be talking about this if he stuck the camera down her blouse, after all. And doesn't harassment enter into it as well, or are all Texans now obliged to be de facto models for anyone who might find us attractive in public?

Which brings us back to the question: what is it about this law? Why was it written if normal privacy laws would do? What does it say? Why does the Supreme Court strike it down?

There's something hidden away here.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Very good point.

@ Ben--do you have any insights in this direction?  If not, perhaps a copy of the law.  What does this law say that the ordinary privacy laws do not?  That will probably lead us to the Texas' Supreme Court's problem with the law.

It's frustrating, I can't find any reference to a specific law that the man was charged under. But I think you could make a pretty good argument that clothing is worn to cover parts of your body you don't consent to reveal, and that to strategically photograph as to circumvent that consent barrier is an invasion of privacy. We wouldn't be talking about this if he stuck the camera down her blouse, after all. And doesn't harassment enter into it as well, or are all Texans now obliged to be de facto models for anyone who might find us attractive in public?

Which brings us back to the question: what is it about this law?  Why was it written if normal privacy laws would do?  What does it say?  Why does the Supreme Court strike it down?

There's something hidden away here.

I agree. The beautiful logic of the constitution is always under attack by people who want to make its words mean something other than their intent.

There is no way that photographing up someone's skirt isn't an invasion of privacy. The idea itself is an insult to the intelligence of the framers and to everyone who can follow their line of reasoning ...

What do you think would happen if a woman was caught taking photo's of under a Scots kilt?

nicko wrote:What do you think would happen if a woman was caught taking photo's of under a Scots kilt?

Same prosecution...less severe penalty.

Same way they have treated paedophile teachers...Debra LaFave, for example.