I believe that laws should match the moral standards of what a society currently believes counts as right and wrong. The fact that this man was prosecuted for something that was currently not illegal kinda bothers me. Not trying to justify what he did, but public opinion vs actual written law tend to vary greatly. Problem solved, though. He'll try again, I'm sure, but since he was 'wrongly accused' and has his name put out there, I'd sue for damages. He could argue his life has been irreparably changed due to a misinterpretation of the law. Just saying. I lost faith in the system a while ago.
I think people should consider their body in 3 dimensions, why are they even not wearing panties? I think if you wanna have privacy, then cover what you want with the mindset that you could be viewed from all angles. Taking upskirt pictures is wrong no doubt about it, but what if you fall and people see you, what if there's a ground camera for artistic purposes, what if there's a mirror on the floor for aesthetics, should the world evolve around you wearing no panties and wearing a skirt, or should you cover that shit up if you don't want it to be seen. Be reasonable retards.
This is so stupid… retarded mindless jellyfish… If it is in public so what? Don't you need my "consent" about my own being??? If i disagree about something that directly affects me. Can't i have a word in it? Can't I say NO!
★JEW WORSHIPS A MAN !―― ★CHRISTIAN WORSHIPS A HUMAN (JESUS) !★ BUDDHIST WORSHIPS BUDDHA!― ★HINDU WORSHIPS COW & UGLY IDOLS―★ then WHO WORSHIP ALMIGHTY CREATOR? NO ONE!
1) I'm a studio, landscape, event, and landscape photographer. In the studio there is reasonable expectation for the verbal and written contract. At events there is reasonable expectation just for the nature of it being public and an event. As for street and landscape photography, the only reason a person in public would not understand there being reasonable expectation is if they are dolts… which so many people are. It seems really hard for people to comprehend the concept of "out in public".
2) Many people just do not grasp the irrationalities that abound within Them for Their conditioning through the multitude of religions that abound throughout the many societies. Women are the worse offenders, examples follow:
a) Can't be seen in public or outside the bedroom showing panties or bra, but can be seen on a public beach with less clothing via a bikini. b) Can be totally naked on the bed and in the shower with You but cannot walk around the house before or after totally naked with You. c) Can knowingly clothe Themselves with a very revealing top and still not want others to ogle that of which She has made intentionally public. d) etc
For being in the genre of art most of My life, currently via photography, I have seen just about every angle of the naked human body. Some figures are sculpted well, but most are not. However, males and females basically all have the same junk, that junk, in and of itself, most never being noteworthy, nor outstanding. In as much as that is so true, You can understand why I have stated to females who thought I took Their picture that I did not take Their picture for They simply were not good looking enough to do so. Females seem not to understand that to be outstanding, They have to be outstanding; Their narcissism is not justification to Me to see Them as hot or sexy or beautiful… worthy of My time. Just being female is zero reason to be photographed.
The reason for releases/contracts is that People are Hell.
Even the word 'upskirt' is kind of nerdishly perverted.Something that could have been invented by readers of Japanese manga.Done by people with poor social skills,and who obviously have emotional immaturity issues,coupled with a lack of feeling for their fellow human beings.So yes,bitch slap the little perverted fuckers down,ladies.And call a cop!
To all women: Here is why this act, in my mind should not be illegal. Rule of thumb is that IN PUBLIC, ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE PICTURES. If you are in the background of a picture, you cannot charge them for that. Keep that in mind. Now, let's go further: In public, you are allowed taking pictures wherever you are and at whatever angle you want. Banning people from taking pictures at certain angles and certain places (near skirts) is a restriction on our freedom. Call it silly, call it immoral, but that is what the law is. Because you are wearing something that you consider a "private area", I cannot take pictures at that particular spot now. Now, what makes YOU call it a PRIVATE area? Girls show their buttcheeks hanging out from their shorts, and the beach shows them as well. So can I charge them for indecent exposure? Girls ALSO show their underwear in public as well (Whaletails anyone?) Can I charge them? With this idea, you're making up what YOU consider to be a "private area". Just because you're wearing something to cover something you don't want to be seen, you are now considering it a private area. As a guy, I don't expect my stomach to be a "private area" because I'm covering it. It needs to be clearly defined what is private and what isn't. And with what clothes girls wear nowadays, it's certainly hard to define. The "personal space" issue does not work either- if you are walking in a crowded hallway, and you walk over me, are you allowed to charge me for being in your personal space (between your legs)? I think not. Please, someone argue with me here. Go for it
when you look at the issue objectively its a tough decision. i am not sure where i fall on it. obviously one can assume the vast majority of women do not want to have their crotches photographed secretly by perverts… but creating specious legislation isnt the way to stop it.
any reasonable person would agree if one is in public one forfeits all rights to privacy (as far as being photographed or filmed to an extent, unless that person tried to profit from said photo/film). but is the part of a person thats covered by clothing actually in public? i would say no. but how do you legislate that?
and where does it stop? should it be illegal to photograph the contents of someones backpack? very murky waters.
Am I really such a bad guy to want people to be free to take photographs of anything in a public place? If you can publicly and passively see it, obviously without any physical manhandling, then you should be free to photograph it. I understand how people can exploit this for their own needs, but its only a sipperly road in regards to civil rights if photography is effectively banned in the public
I really hope most of you are just saying stupid shit to get a reaction out of people. If you truly believe there is nothing wrong with upskirt photos, even if women aren't wearing underwear then you're fucked. That is the same logic as "she was wearing a skirt so of course she was asking to be raped". I hope you don't have mothers, sisters, daughters or nieces.
I wish someone had answered Ben's question at the end. In fact they should have not only told us his name, but found a good picture of him. Off course a photo that had been taken in public where he had no expectation of privacy. It is time the whole country extends some recognition to this upstanding citizen. Hopefully, every time he ventures outside his home.
Dammit! I had already purchased my plane ticket to go to pervert heaven too. It's all good though. Society is becoming more and more perverse. It will be legal eventually.
What I don't get is why there is a debate of whether a woman is wearing underwear or not when these, unfortunate, circumstances come about. This is just another fine example of the sexist, blame culture we're dealing with.
Newsflash: It doesn't matter whether one is wearing underwear or not. No one has the right to take photos of someone's undergarments or privates without their consent. It's that fucking simple. I can't fathom why this is hard to digest.
Ana Kasparian You can not punish people for violating laws ex post facto. The judge could have finagled the decision to come up with a guilty verdict, but do we want to live in a country where judges take it upon themselves to bend the laws in any manner that suits their agenda? Don't get me wrong, the "photographer" was a creeper who deserves jail time and a hefty fine, but the law did not accommodate that, and any interpretation that did would likely lead to problems in future cases when this one would be cited as precedent. And as was stated by someone else in that segment, that guy is likely the type that will get arrested for something else in the near future. The actual mass law was written back when you would be using one of those giant cameras with big metal exposure plates (though it has been amended a couple times since then), and getting an upskirt with one of those would require a willing skirt wearer. The bottom line is that the law on the books was based on expectation of privacy, and being in public is the exact opposite of private. The Massachusetts legislature acted with considerable alacrity in plugging the hole in the law, and that should give us hope that maybe on the national level we could someday have national legislature so keen on improving the law when application does not meet the people's expectations.
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their own clothes, and under their own skirt. So the "they're in a public place, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy" argument doesn't hold up. Under a girl's skirt in a private place, and one should expect some privacy there, even if walking in a public place.
who the hell wants to see an upskirt pic anyway? I guess its supposed to be funny. I don't get it. The guys that take these pics as well as the ones who look for them must have the mind of a 12 year old. If I were to catch some shitbag doing this I would embarrass him on the spot. This is beyond stupid.
what the hell is wrong with people nowadays? when you are in public you have no rights of privacy? ofc you do, that's why people wear clothes, in the same way people can't drop my pants they shouldn't be able to do that just because a woman is using skirt… it should be the exact opposite, someone nude on the street is conscious that they will have no privacy, a person with clothes don't
34 comments
I believe that laws should match the moral standards of what a society currently believes counts as right and wrong. The fact that this man was prosecuted for something that was currently not illegal kinda bothers me. Not trying to justify what he did, but public opinion vs actual written law tend to vary greatly. Problem solved, though. He'll try again, I'm sure, but since he was 'wrongly accused' and has his name put out there, I'd sue for damages. He could argue his life has been irreparably changed due to a misinterpretation of the law. Just saying. I lost faith in the system a while ago.
this is a sick human race .
TYT logo on that set is way too "loud" and distracting.
Simma that thing down, now.
I like the way Eboni K. Williams thinks. at least in this case, this is the first time i have seen her.
I think people should consider their body in 3 dimensions, why are they even not wearing panties? I think if you wanna have privacy, then cover what you want with the mindset that you could be viewed from all angles. Taking upskirt pictures is wrong no doubt about it, but what if you fall and people see you, what if there's a ground camera for artistic purposes, what if there's a mirror on the floor for aesthetics, should the world evolve around you wearing no panties and wearing a skirt, or should you cover that shit up if you don't want it to be seen. Be reasonable retards.
This is so stupid… retarded mindless jellyfish… If it is in public so what? Don't you need my "consent" about my own being??? If i disagree about something that directly affects me. Can't i have a word in it? Can't I say NO!
The fat guy never adds anything to the discussion he just gets angry or agrees with other people. It is annoying.
★JEW WORSHIPS A MAN !―― ★CHRISTIAN WORSHIPS A HUMAN (JESUS) !★ BUDDHIST WORSHIPS BUDDHA!― ★HINDU WORSHIPS COW & UGLY IDOLS―★ then WHO WORSHIP ALMIGHTY CREATOR? NO ONE!
A mini-rant:
1) I'm a studio, landscape, event, and landscape photographer. In the studio there is reasonable expectation for the verbal and written contract. At events there is reasonable expectation just for the nature of it being public and an event. As for street and landscape photography, the only reason a person in public would not understand there being reasonable expectation is if they are dolts… which so many people are. It seems really hard for people to comprehend the concept of "out in public".
2) Many people just do not grasp the irrationalities that abound within Them for Their conditioning through the multitude of religions that abound throughout the many societies. Women are the worse offenders, examples follow:
a) Can't be seen in public or outside the bedroom showing panties or bra, but can be seen on a public beach with less clothing via a bikini.
b) Can be totally naked on the bed and in the shower with You but cannot walk around the house before or after totally naked with You.
c) Can knowingly clothe Themselves with a very revealing top and still not want others to ogle that of which She has made intentionally public.
d) etc
For being in the genre of art most of My life, currently via photography, I have seen just about every angle of the naked human body. Some figures are sculpted well, but most are not. However, males and females basically all have the same junk, that junk, in and of itself, most never being noteworthy, nor outstanding. In as much as that is so true, You can understand why I have stated to females who thought I took Their picture that I did not take Their picture for They simply were not good looking enough to do so. Females seem not to understand that to be outstanding, They have to be outstanding; Their narcissism is not justification to Me to see Them as hot or sexy or beautiful… worthy of My time. Just being female is zero reason to be photographed.
The reason for releases/contracts is that People are Hell.
If you dont want me to take pictures of your panties dont wear a skirt. End of story.
God bless this country. I love this fucking law.
Even the word 'upskirt' is kind of nerdishly perverted.Something that could have been invented by readers of Japanese manga.Done by people with poor social skills,and who obviously have emotional immaturity issues,coupled with a lack of feeling for their fellow human beings.So yes,bitch slap the little perverted fuckers down,ladies.And call a cop!
To all women: Here is why this act, in my mind should not be illegal. Rule of thumb is that IN PUBLIC, ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE PICTURES. If you are in the background of a picture, you cannot charge them for that. Keep that in mind. Now, let's go further: In public, you are allowed taking pictures wherever you are and at whatever angle you want. Banning people from taking pictures at certain angles and certain places (near skirts) is a restriction on our freedom. Call it silly, call it immoral, but that is what the law is. Because you are wearing something that you consider a "private area", I cannot take pictures at that particular spot now. Now, what makes YOU call it a PRIVATE area? Girls show their buttcheeks hanging out from their shorts, and the beach shows them as well. So can I charge them for indecent exposure? Girls ALSO show their underwear in public as well (Whaletails anyone?) Can I charge them? With this idea, you're making up what YOU consider to be a "private area". Just because you're wearing something to cover something you don't want to be seen, you are now considering it a private area. As a guy, I don't expect my stomach to be a "private area" because I'm covering it. It needs to be clearly defined what is private and what isn't. And with what clothes girls wear nowadays, it's certainly hard to define. The "personal space" issue does not work either- if you are walking in a crowded hallway, and you walk over me, are you allowed to charge me for being in your personal space (between your legs)? I think not. Please, someone argue with me here. Go for it
Anna have some competition , I would like to look up both of those skirts lol . I know I'm a pig
how is this a fix?
Man! it makes upskirt footage extra stimulating.
when you look at the issue objectively its a tough decision. i am not sure where i fall on it. obviously one can assume the vast majority of women do not want to have their crotches photographed secretly by perverts… but creating specious legislation isnt the way to stop it.
any reasonable person would agree if one is in public one forfeits all rights to privacy (as far as being photographed or filmed to an extent, unless that person tried to profit from said photo/film). but is the part of a person thats covered by clothing actually in public? i would say no. but how do you legislate that?
and where does it stop? should it be illegal to photograph the contents of someones backpack? very murky waters.
yay. Lets make more laws to limit consequences for people making dumb decisions.
Am I really such a bad guy to want people to be free to take photographs of anything in a public place? If you can publicly and passively see it, obviously without any physical manhandling, then you should be free to photograph it. I understand how people can exploit this for their own needs, but its only a sipperly road in regards to civil rights if photography is effectively banned in the public
That awkward moment when you have to clarify that secretly taking pictures up a woman's skirt in public is wrong… After a woman deemed it legal.
How creepy are people.
Public outcry at upskirt pics, but it's alright for the TSA to photograph everyone naked.
Just because something gets banned doesn't mean that people are gonna stop doing,in fact they may even do it more now than before.
why there is a debate of whether a woman is wearing underwear or not?
that's not the fucking point.
I really hope most of you are just saying stupid shit to get a reaction out of people. If you truly believe there is nothing wrong with upskirt photos, even if women aren't wearing underwear then you're fucked. That is the same logic as "she was wearing a skirt so of course she was asking to be raped". I hope you don't have mothers, sisters, daughters or nieces.
I wish someone had answered Ben's question at the end. In fact they should have not only told us his name, but found a good picture of him. Off course a photo that had been taken in public where he had no expectation of privacy. It is time the whole country extends some recognition to this upstanding citizen. Hopefully, every time he ventures outside his home.
Dammit! I had already purchased my plane ticket to go to pervert heaven too. It's all good though. Society is becoming more and more perverse. It will be legal eventually.
What I don't get is why there is a debate of whether a woman is wearing underwear or not when these, unfortunate, circumstances come about. This is just another fine example of the sexist, blame culture we're dealing with.
Newsflash: It doesn't matter whether one is wearing underwear or not. No one has the right to take photos of someone's undergarments or privates without their consent. It's that fucking simple. I can't fathom why this is hard to digest.
Ana Kasparian
You can not punish people for violating laws ex post facto. The judge could have finagled the decision to come up with a guilty verdict, but do we want to live in a country where judges take it upon themselves to bend the laws in any manner that suits their agenda? Don't get me wrong, the "photographer" was a creeper who deserves jail time and a hefty fine, but the law did not accommodate that, and any interpretation that did would likely lead to problems in future cases when this one would be cited as precedent. And as was stated by someone else in that segment, that guy is likely the type that will get arrested for something else in the near future. The actual mass law was written back when you would be using one of those giant cameras with big metal exposure plates (though it has been amended a couple times since then), and getting an upskirt with one of those would require a willing skirt wearer. The bottom line is that the law on the books was based on expectation of privacy, and being in public is the exact opposite of private. The Massachusetts legislature acted with considerable alacrity in plugging the hole in the law, and that should give us hope that maybe on the national level we could someday have national legislature so keen on improving the law when application does not meet the people's expectations.
Remember, McGruff the crime dog says "Help take a bite out of crime – cover your vaggy in public". lol.
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their own clothes, and under their own skirt. So the "they're in a public place, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy" argument doesn't hold up. Under a girl's skirt in a private place, and one should expect some privacy there, even if walking in a public place.
who the hell wants to see an upskirt pic anyway? I guess its supposed to be funny. I don't get it. The guys that take these pics as well as the ones who look for them must have the mind of a 12 year old. If I were to catch some shitbag doing this I would embarrass him on the spot. This is beyond stupid.
Why cant we have this type of back lash towards the NSA? Our 4th amendment rights.
what the hell is wrong with people nowadays? when you are in public you have no rights of privacy? ofc you do, that's why people wear clothes, in the same way people can't drop my pants they shouldn't be able to do that just because a woman is using skirt… it should be the exact opposite, someone nude on the street is conscious that they will have no privacy, a person with clothes don't