Seriously?
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.”
I suppose kicking these "photographers" in the crotch would interfere with the exercise of their rights? Probably also resulting in the loss of my own personal freedom.
The ruling stemmed from the arrest of a man in his 50s named Ronald Thompson, who was stopped by police officers alerted by concerned parents in SeaWorld, San Antonio in 2011. Officers later found 73 images of children in swimsuits after confiscating his camera.
Seriously?
However, lawyers for Mr Thompson argued the above-mentioned law was “the stuff of Orwellian ‘thought-crime’”.
So this is the new defense for perverts and pedophiles? How dare you interfere with their rights to be aroused! Freedom!
I suppose the next trend in Texas is to have floor mounted surveillance cameras.
Hmmmm.
5:13 AM PT: The reason for up skirts being quoted
http://www.khou.com/...
As linked in the article in the first link.
The decision stemmed from a 2011 case involving a man criminally charged after taking photos of children in their swimsuits at SeaWorld.
Someone who feels the frustration of this decision is Halie Ricketts. Ricketts told KVUE in May that she felt violated after she claims a man took a video up her skirt at La Cantera Mall earlier this year.
Ricketts hoped to get justice after good Samaritans chased down the man she said took the video up her dress. However, the man was never charged. Authorities cited a 2013 ruling from the 4th court of appeals which determined the state's improper photography law unconstitutional and a violation of free speech.
5:48 AM PT: The law concerned
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/...
Overturned by calling a camera a photographers pen hence freedom of speech.
a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to:
(i) invade the privacy of the other person; or
(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/...
7:17 AM PT: OK, OK, I surrender
But
If I go to Texas I will remember to pack my knickers.