The bill to ban upskirt photos didn't make it to the state senate and has to wait until next year.



http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=619267

*buys camera phone*

*debates on wearing underwear in maryland

*votes nay*

Don't worry. You can always shoot down her blouse.

*tell FBI porn task force I live in Maryland*

that this whole thing has to be taking up valuable tax payer time is atrocious.

to those taking pix up women's skirts: get a fucking life.

to those who are uptight about sneaky-peaky pix: get a fucking life.

In other news, Chuck Berry has decided to give the restaurant industry another shot



whygodeep

I believe the last time this was proposed to change, a bunch of amendments were added... something like you can no longer take unsolicited pictures of women and you must feed babies crystal meth. Something like that. I can't really remember becuase my parents were in favor of the meth thing. Vote with your wallet and all.

I've got to say, as distasteful as this type of thing may be, I'm against restricting where you can aim your camera when you're in public. Think about it this way. The courts have ruled that it's legal for a cop to look in on your property, or even into your window, to gather evidence, so long as he has the right to be standing where he is standing when he does it. In fact, I seem to remember a court writing specifically that if a member of the public has the right to be where the cop is, then the cop has the right to be there as well.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I can see down your blouse from where I'm legally standing, then I should have the right to take a picture. After all, it lasts longer, right ladies?

I like boobs too.

so, you should be allowed to get on your hands and knees or by whatever means and look up a woman's skirt, and photograph it? seems like a massive invasion of privacy and personal space to me.

You'd think that if the guy were being that obvious about it, he wouldn't be able to get his desired shot. Besides, there are laws regarding harrassment and molestation and such. I'm just saying that if the subject is not aware of the camera, and the photos were taken from a place the photographer had the right to be (i.e. NOT on his hands and knees looking up her skirt), then I see no prblem with it. Basically, if I can sit on the beach and watch girls walk by in their bathing suits, there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to tape them. If they don't like it, they can put on clothes.

no. absolutely not.

i wear skirts in the summer because it's hot outside. i don't wear short skirts that my ass hangs out of. i'm careful how i sit. i'm so careful about this, that i usually wear boycut shorts under my skirts. you shouldn't be allowed to walk behind me and hold a camera phone near my ass or attach a camera to your shoe or shopping bag (think i'm joking? i've read articles about this) and take a picture up my skirt.

i wear shirts with v necks. my tits don't hang out of them. they're not cut down to my navel. they cover up every part of me that's supposed to be covered up. you shouldn't be allowed to stand over me when i'm sitting down or bending over and take a picture down my shirt. i don't care if when i bent over, my shirt gapped open and you could see down it. that's not what i was intending to happen.

by this logic, you should be allowed to stand in your backyard with a telephoto lens and take pictures of me when i'm in my pool. by this logic, you should be able to stand outside of a school and take pictures of the cheerleaders as they leave the building. you're allowed to be there, yeah? by this logic, i should be able to take a picture of everyone in a locker room that's getting dressed or showering. i should be allowed to take pictures of the people using the communal showers in a dorm. by this logic, i should be allowed to accidentally stumble into a men's room and take a picture of you taking a leak because i can see your dick from where i'm legally standing. so what if it's creepy? a photo lasts longer, right?

it's not an issue of being able to see what you're seeing from where you are. it's an issue of being creepy and invading someone's privacy. it's an issue of drawing the line well within the realm of human decency.

Settle down, I'm not a perv.

But seriously, where do you draw the line? Why is it worse to make a recording of something than to merely see it? Would it be "creepy" for me to merely take video of you walking down the street, fully clothed? How about for me to take video of a public figure like a movie star or a politician? You know, there are people in California who are trying to get laws passed that would stop papparazzi from taking photos or video of celebrities when they're simply out in public doing normal things like shopping or driving. Why do they have the right to be free from such things?

I'm not saying that it's not sketchy to take pics of cleavage or upskirts or things like that, I'm just saying that I worry about how one would fashion the law against it, and what other things might get lumped into a law to protect people from such distatseful invasions of privacy. I tend to err on the side of "don't make new regulations at all if you can't fashion them perfectly to the problem".

you know what, it is sort of creepy for you to just take a picture of me when i'm walking down the street. i don't really know why you'd feel the need to do that. the thing that worries me about all of this is the usage. i'm not a movie star, so you're not trying to sell my picture to people or us weekly. you may, however, be putting it up on some website and i don't like the thought of that at all.

and, honestly, i do think they that should pass some sort of banning on paparazi. i was watching a show on vh1 a few days ago. it was basically camera crews doing ride alongs with paparazi. these people were driving like morons, stopping their cars in the middle of the road just to get a picture of someone entering a nail salon, talking on all sorts of things as they drove, taking pictures as they drove. it's insane and it's dangerous. you wanna take a picture of some hollywood types at a movie premier? fine. you hear that paris hilton's getting her nails done and you feel the need to hop in your car, drive seventy down the road and just stop outside the nail salon to wait for her? dangerous and not fine.

i don't see the problem with creating a law that says "you cannot set up a hidden camera to take a picture of someone in a bathroom, locker room, dressing room, sauna, communal shower, or hotel room. you cannot go into one of these locations and take photographs with an exposed camera. you cannot go to a beach, nude or otherwise, or public pool with the express purpose of photograping the patrons. you cannot stand somewhere, whether it be your own or public property, and take photographs of someone in a state of undress, such as in their own pool or through their window as they are changing. furthermore, you cannot use a camera, rather it's a camera phone, hand-held camera or something rigged up and hidden, to take a picture up someone's skirt or down someone's shirt." i honestly don't see the problem with that.

I was watching that show tonight. It's creepy, it can be intrusive, and it's fucked up that people are willing to pay people buttloads of money for these pictures, but I can't say I think it should be illegal. And BTW, there are already laws regarding driving recklessly, no need to make new laws.

If you don't mind, I'd like to parse your proposed statutory language.


Those laws already exist, and if they don't, most establishments with those types of facilities have specific rules against such behavior.

I guess I'll just have to not express my purpose then. Seriously though, what's the harm? If they use the photos for an improper purpose (like for stalking the subjects), prosecute them for that. The pictures themselves cause no harm.


Again, laws are already in place about taking photos into someone's home, and if you're going to nude sunbathe in a place where people can see you, that is a risk you are assuming, whether it's your own backyard or not.


OK, so this is the crux of the issue. Since it would already be illegal for me to be in a position (such as on my hands and knees, or holding a camera between your knees while you're walking) to shoot an upskirt shot in many cases (under molestation laws), why make a new law? However, if you're going to sit at a table and spread your legs so I can see up your skirt from 20 feet away, why shouldn't I be able to take a picture? You see the law, if a new one is even necessary, should be crafted perfectly, or not crafted at all.

we are obviously not going to agree on this, david.

if you had a teenaged daughter who wore a skirt to the mall and sat in the food court with her legs opened so that you could see up her skirt, would you approve of some guy sitting nearby taking a picture of it?

are you saying that it's alright to go to a beach and take stacks of pictures of girls in scantilly clad swimsuits for your own personal collection? is it okay, then, to take pictures of the kids on the beach for your own personal collection? is it okay to take pictures of little kids coming out of a school for your own personal collection?

and i realise that those laws are already in place. i was just pointing out that it's all sort of in the same vein. also, no law is perfectly crafted, and we have plenty of them.