• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Upskirts are legal in Texas again

Eh, the rationale is sound.
The Texas law, part of the penal code, prohibits improper photography or visual recording “with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the defendant,” according to the court. It was that provision of arousal that became an important part of the court’s decision because of the questions of how to determine what is in a defendant’s mind.
Click to expand...
“The Texas law seems to be overly broad,” said Policinski, separating conduct, which can be punished, from the thoughts of the person charged. “The pattern in these cases has been for the legislators to come back when a court rules and draw a narrower law.”
Click to expand...

Idiot legislators should have known that wording would never work. It's not the court's fault that they wrote a bad law.
 
Agreed, but on the other hand I think times have changed, and simply coming down on the side of expression is not going to cover this, not when someone can take a picture of you and make it available to millions in seconds. Don't professionals need "model releases" before they try to sell works that include images of individuals who aren't "public figures?" I would have no real qualms about extending that sort of protection to any public display. So someone can take a picture of you without your consent, but cannot display it publicly in any way without that consent. We'd all just have to live with the fact that some creepos will take pictures for their own use and gratification, and that seems like a reasonable risk to take.
 
Markbnj said:
Agreed, but on the other hand I think times have changed, and simply coming down on the side of expression is not going to cover this, not when someone can take a picture of you and make it available to millions in seconds. Don't professionals need "model releases" before they try to sell works that include images of individuals who aren't "public figures?" I would have no real qualms about extending that sort of protection to any public display. So someone can take a picture of you without your consent, but cannot display it publicly in any way without that consent. We'd all just have to live with the fact that some creepos will take pictures for their own use and gratification, and that seems like a reasonable risk to take.
Click to expand...

That interpretation would probably get some traction in the EU, but afaik US law treats public spaces as a free-for-all. It would go against precedent to limit distribution like that.

It would also be a bit of a mess; stadiums would have to post EULAs stating that by entering patrons are consenting to have their images recorded and distributed, for example. It would be impossible to photograph parks or city centers, because of getting releases from everyone involved.

It might be simpler to make attempting to bypass reasonable privacy measures (skirts, bathroom stall walls, etc) a misdemeanor. Of course, that would require a complete overhaul of the NSA, so maybe that won't work either.
 
Ruptga said:
It would also be a bit of a mess; stadiums would have to post EULAs stating that by entering patrons are consenting to have their images recorded and distributed, for example. It would be impossible to photograph parks or city centers, because of getting releases from everyone involved.
Click to expand...

True, but the law could contain an exception for public assemblies easily enough. I suspect there is enough existing precedent to adequately define what that term means.
 
Ruptga said:
Eh, the rationale is sound.


Idiot legislators should have known that wording would never work. It's not the court's fault that they wrote a bad law.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing they intentionally left it vague. They like to leave things open for interpretation so that they can try to change how it's used to their whim.
 
The new iPhone's EULA, or End User License Agreement, bestows iPhone users worldwide legal protection for upskirt pics and sexting. I reddit on 4chan once so it must be true.

I'm kidding of course but if I post this there you know they will make a full page color advertisement and gullible iPhone users will be caught reddit handed.

Let the lulz Menachem Begin.
 
Ruptga said:
That interpretation would probably get some traction in the EU, but afaik US law treats public spaces as a free-for-all. It would go against precedent to limit distribution like that.
Click to expand...

Or you know they could just wear underwear when outside.
 
norseamd said:
Or you know they could just wear underwear when outside.
Click to expand...

Who says they aren't? In thirty years when people are getting body scanned by wardriving weirdos, will your response be to suggest that they just wear aluminum clothes in public, as opposed to that indecent transparent clothing?
 
Ruptga said:
Who says they aren't? In thirty years when people are getting body scanned by wardriving weirdos, will your response be to suggest that they just wear aluminum clothes in public, as opposed to that indecent transparent clothing?
Click to expand...

That is a hard question to respond to but we have to be careful of overreacting.
 
If The Fappening has taught us anything it's how futile it would be to carry around a camera looking for an upskirt shot. Most women already have far better pictures on their phones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top