This makes me so mad!! - Upskirt Photos

[FundieWatcher]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/11/ ... l=facebook

Link not broken because it is The Daily Kos.

It is not illegal for someone to take a picture up your 13-year old daughters skirt. How is that not child pornography?

Fundies would probably say "oh that's why we wear skirts that drag the floor". *vomit* Always gotta be the woman's fault, we can't blame the lordship menfolk.

[bluehydrangea]

This is so disturbing. Disturbing enough that I could see fundies even denouncing the idea, though I imagine that they might blame the salacious outfits of other women/girls for creating the lust that caused this man to do this.

[Burris]

I think the guy who did this is lewd at best.

That said, most public places (except the toilets) are scanned by cameras. The only privacy that exists publicly - whether for boys with low pants that reveal their undergarments, or for girls who wear close-cut skirts - is beneath clothes that provide a level of coverage.

That is in no way a condemnation of the girl. It would be gratifying if she could sue for something.

[samurai_sarah]

I think the guy who did this is lewd at best.

That said, every part of most public placed (except the toilets) are covered by cameras.

But the cameras are generally aimed at people's faces/general appearance, not their undies.

[Burris]

But the cameras are generally aimed at people's faces/general appearance, not their undies.

...except sometimes they cover undergarments as well.

[samurai_sarah]

...except sometimes they cover undergarments as well.

I spoke from a general UK perspective, and take my general assumption back. Both frightening and enlightening!

[Burris]

I spoke from a general UK perspective, and take my general assumption back. Both frightening and enlightening!

Yes - it's disturbing.

[RosyDaisy]

What a pervert!

[Chloride]

And apparently it is legal in Texas due to the 1st Ammendment. The right to take creep shots is obviously more important than a woman/girls right to not be sexually harrassed.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/11/1363757/-Man-takes-upskirt-photo-of-13-year-old-girl-in-a-Target-store-Oregon-judge-rules-it-s-legal?detail=facebook

Link not broken because it is The Daily Kos.

It is not illegal for someone to take a picture up your 13-year old daughters skirt. How is that not child pornography?

Fundies would probably say "oh that's why we wear skirts that drag the floor". *vomit* Always gotta be the woman's fault, we can't blame the lordship menfolk.

That is disgusting. How can that be legal!? Ugh.

But I'm curious as to why this is in quiver full of snark. I don't see how you take this from gross perv guy to fundies would blame the girl, and then throw it in QFoS :think:

[freejingerbeth]

I just got this off a legal website in which someone asked about their rights concerning the unauthorized use of their photo. The website says you can stop the use of the image, for 3 reasons. One of those reasons is, Invasion of Privacy. See, below.

Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.

I would think that this woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy, with regard to parts of her body that were under her skirt, even if she was in a public place.

[moreorlessnu]

This may be a case where the laws have not yet caught up with technology. In Massachusetts, "upskirting" wasn't illegal until last March. Here's a CNN article that explains some of the details: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/us/massac ... skirt-ban/

[FundieWatcher]

I don't see how you take this from gross perv guy to fundies would blame the girl, and then throw it in QFoS

I was thinking because fundies always blame the women. I don't know, that might have been a stretch. :confusion-scratchheadblue:

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

I was thinking because fundies always blame the women. I don't know, that might have been a stretch. :confusion-scratchheadblue:

Maybe a little ;)

[formergothardite]

I was thinking because fundies always blame the women. I don't know, that might have been a stretch. :confusion-scratchheadblue:

I actually know fundies who would blame the girl(they would toss some blame to the guy too, but mostly it would be the woman's fault) so you didn't pull it totally out of thin air. They would say, "If that girl had been wearing a very long skirt this wouldn't have been possible."

[DGayle]

Taking a picture of a personal area on a minor, clothed or not, for sexual gratification is already a crime.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

Taking a picture of a personal area on a minor, clothed or not, for sexual gratification is already a crime.

Um yeah. How is this NOT child pornography? There is no non-sexual reason for an upskirt photo. People upthread are using the word "woman." Please realize this was a 13 y.o. CHILD. I really hope the parents don't drop this.

[FundieWatcher]

"Taking a picture of a personal area on a minor, clothed or not, for sexual gratification is already a crime."

According to this judge no crime was committed. I would guess they couldn't prove it was for sexual use or something.

I bet if they were to search this guys computer they could find something to charge him with...

I think it is child pornography personally.

[DaffyDill]

That's unbelievable the judge said no crime was committed. Over here people have been successfully prosecuted for 'up skirting' as it comes under "Unauthorised filming of a person's private parts" and carries a possible sentence of between 1-5 years gaol, possibly more if the victim is a child, as in this case.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-24/m ... ts/4276614 This case was over two years ago, and the victim a grown woman.

I cant believe some creep can take photos up the skirt of a 13 y/o and not be prosecuted. I'm sure we had laws covering it as far back as 2007-8...or it came under stalking and unauthorised film laws, even back then.

[DGayle]

"Taking a picture of a personal area on a minor, clothed or not, for sexual gratification is already a crime."

According to this judge no crime was committed. I would guess they couldn't prove it was for sexual use or something.

I bet if they were to search this guys computer they could find something to charge him with...

I think it is child pornography personally.

There is no logical non-sexual reason for taking unauthorized (not that children can consent anyway) photos of a child's genital area outside of a medical setting, and even then, it's a tricky situation.

[Mellanya]

What about consent? If I do not give you consent to take a picture of me (or any part of me), you have no business taking pictures of me. If not for child pornography (this IS tricky in this situation), at least that should work. Unauthorized pictures should not be allowed - period (although this is yet another difficult thing to discuss).

If parents don't consent in cases of minors, the same applies. Nobody should be allowed to go around taking pictures of random kids for any reason - what the actual fuck! I mean, what's going to happen to these pics? They going to be on Facebook? Tumblr? Instagram? hornygirls.com? There's just no way for the parents to control that, thus I don't understand why the judge didn't interfere here.

I mean, yes, cameras, but you do consent to be filmed in this case - by entering the store/area/bar/restaurant/whatever.

[morri]

It is a skirt and a pair of legs.

While it may not be comfy to think of a man getting off on a pair of knees and a skirt, there was no harm done and there isnt any sexualising done. If he took a shot to her underpants it would be different.

[whoviana]

Um, somewhat unrelated, really but could someone hand me a flamethrower? Thx.

[FundieWatcher]

"If he took a shot to her underpants it would be different."

It was. In the story I linked to it doesn't explain that, but other news stories went into more detail.

[nomoxian]

Upskirt shot of an adult taken without permssion = sexual assault

Upskirt shot of a minor (which by default is unsolicited) = sexual assault and child pornography

WTF is with this judge?!