Since women's rights seems to be a hot topic here and now: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/judge-rules-man-who-took-photos-up-ladies-skirts-at-lincoln-memorial-didn-t-violate-their-privacy-10.html A Washington DC judge has ruled to suppress his photos as evidence, which means that the prosecution doesn't have a case against him.
As creepy as this guy and his fellow up-skirters are, I've always thought that anything you can see without breaking a law (trespass, etc.) you should be able to legally photograph.
This opens up a huge debate.... As disturbing as it is, there are valid points in this article, some of it factors to the responsibility of the individual and what one chooses to wear in public. (shudders...images of things seen in public, seared to retinas...). People need to be aware of what is going on around them, and it is an unfortunate truth that there are exploitative creeps doing crap like this. In this case, even though it goes against the grain, I have to agree with the ruling. In too many cases individuals are absolved of responsibility for their actions: Google inane lawsuits and you'll find a staggering list. I wish it had been for something less disturbing, but cameras are chronic in today's society and when one visits a public site there is no privacy, it is a social hub. I know there will be those who disagree with this, and rightly so, but I'm just saying when out in public, be conscious of the image you project. While most of us will be pleasantly ignored in our daily routines, you never know who might be watching. Creepy and depressing, yes, but unfortunately true.
It takes time for laws to catch up with technology. Massachusetts only recently closed a loophole in the wording of the most relevant laws to make upskirting illegal and enforceable.
I live in the land of Minnesota nice, peopled with folk who favour jeans, fleece, sports jerseys, and flannel, so this hasn't been much of an issue. Around here if you are seen wearing a dress or a skirt, they ask what party you're heading to. The concept of wearing a dress for the sake of wearing a dress is foreign.
I didn't really understand the last paragraph of the article... This was a motion on evidence suppression, I guess... the judge said the pictures in the camera couldn't be used as evidence, because... I guess because she didn't think there was any sign of a crime being committed. So according to that last paragraph, upskirting may in fact still be illegal, because this wasn't a case of upskirting? Is that because there was no special action taken to get the pictures? The camera wasn't slid along the ground or anything... But then I don't understand the there was "absolutely no evidence that on the day of his arrest, the defendant engaged in behavior that could be described in any way as ‘upskirting’." Was there no evidence because what he was doing doesn't count as upskirting, or was there no evidence because the judge ruled it inadmissible? I don't know, but I don't think this is as clear as "upskirting is legal," not given that last paragraph.
*Sorry if I'm bombing this thread. I'll stop if I am asked. I think I wanna be convinced here. I've never thought of this before, but on first impression, I'm leaning towards @stevesh and his stance. However, a little thinking begins to demonstrate the stance's questionability. The following statement seems to make sense (the language is vague, though): If someone has exposed theirself to an uninvestigative public, then any photography, video recording, what-have-you is permissible, since the individual has, intentionally or unintentionally, exposed theirself. Thus, if a person is sitting on some steps, wearing a skirt, and their private area(s) are exposed, and another can seen this as the another can see all other things in the public venue, then the subject matter of the viewed is irrelevant, and any image capturing/recording is legitimate. There's a problem here, though. I see two immediate questions that come up. Does the environment dictate what is privacy? This question arises, because, in the above, the person is exposed due to their higher location. If the person were sitting at a lower level, then exposure likely wouldn't have occurred and the privacy of their genitals would then be present. The second question: Do we regard the person's intention for privacy? The person referenced in the question would be, lining up with the scenario, the person sitting on the steps. Did the person intend to expose their private area(s)? If the person didn't, then do we extend privacy? If someone is going into the public straight naked with the intention of exposure, can they be protected, since they intended to expose theirself? This is another scenario to demonstrate the potential affects that an environment could have on what would be considered privacy with the previous classification (If someone exposed theirself to an uninvestigative...). Let's say that there is multi-story building with glass floors and ceilings. There are people on the second story and all of them are wearing skirts (men, too) and happen to be wearing no undergarments. Do the people on the first floor, since they only need look up and behold the spectacle of external organs in the near-open air, then have full reign to take pictures or flip out the next Youtube hit, since this likely hasn't ever happened? After all, the people on the second floor are exposed publicly just as everything else is exposed. But, I'm sure that they are not making an effort to expose themselves. So, how do we dictate when someone has privacy, even in a public venue? The blantant exposure seems limited and missing the point. After writing this, I'm tempted to say that the person's intent to expose ought dictate privacy. If I do not intend to expose myself, then I should be protected. However, this would possibly be impractical. How could one be known to be intentionally or unintentionally exposing theirself? It seems iffy.
Upskirting: the sign of someone utterly pathetic. If a guy wants to see a girl's pants, just sleep with her! If she doesn't want to ride your joystick, fuck off, you are not wanted - deal with it.
@Lemex : Deliberate upskirting definitely is. It's a sign of extreme disrespect for personal boundaries and on a psychological continuum with Peeping Toms and power-reassurance rapists. Opportunistic pictures of women's privates, like say a wind blows a skirt up and someone accidentally takes a photo of it, then posts it online, is more the sign of disrespect but without seriously dangerously deviant connotations. I think sexual images, exposing or focusing on sexual organs, should have model consent, if they don't they should be illegal. I'd extend this courtesy to the celebs getting out of cars too. It'd preserve the dignity of some, and deny attention-seeking opportunity to others. Positive outcomes all around
Yeah, I agree. I know upskirting is an illicit thrill and all, but seriously, if that your main way of curbing your sexual urges then I can't say I have much sympathy. Just go into your room with a few magazines or a laptop with an internet connection and wank - like everyone else.
Honestly, I think this makes sense. It's skeevy and stupid and nasty to deliberately photograph it, but illegal? That seems to be taking it too far, to me. I think the general test is whether a reasonable person would expect the environment to be private. Women who wear skirts (and possibly no underwear?) and sit on public steps (with their legs open?) do not, to my mind, have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone was walking by below and looked up, that person could be upset/traumatized by their casual exhibitionism... to me, that makes it clear the location in this situation wasn't private. I think this is interesting. It's hard to know anyone's intentions, but I think we can use the same 'reasonable person' test as we did above. As you say, if someone is streaking, deliberately exposing themselves, they shouldn't be able to complain about people photographing them. I was wondering if we could focus more on the intent of the photographer as a way to determine what should be illegal. Like, if someone accidentally photographs someone else's privates, there's no mens rea (guilty intent) and it shouldn't be a crime. That's just a basic rule of criminal law. If someone, as in this case, seems to be deliberately photographing someone else's privates, without that person's knowledge or consent - hmmmm. That's definitely what makes it skeevy. But if the women were exposing themselves, however accidentally, to me that's different than someone taking deliberate, invasive steps to violate the privacy of a person's clothing (as in a classic case of upskirting). I don't know. Just for fun, a few hypotheticals of my own: If the photographer had a foot fetish and was taking pictures of people's feet, would it be equally skeevy? Does distribution of the photos factor into all this? If the photographer in this case had distributed the pictures, should that be illegal? What about the age of the women/girls being photographed? Fine for adults, but pornography if children? What about charging the women with indecent exposure? If they were sitting in such a way that a person below them could casually see their genitals, are they exposing themselves illegally?[/quote]
@BayView : I'm not going to quote, because I rather agree with all your points. On these scenarios, though. With this foot fetish one, you've raised an interesting point of question. Yes, we can agree that snooping pictures of someone's genitals is sleazy, but this is only because we all think that one's genitals are related to sexual activity and attraction and ought be private, partially due to these associations. If the genitals' main function was to high-five people, we wouldn't have the same idea about it. So, with this foot example, sure, the foot isn't something equal to the genitals in the average eye, but a person with a foot fetish may disagree. If such a person's perspective were commonplace, we'd probably treat feet as we do genitals. If that's the case, then it seems that the level of privacy of something is related to how we interpret how that thing ought be treated. Since this is conditional, reliant on the observer and the observed, how do we go about setting standards? Do we set standards for the norm, and then ignore the outliers or treat them as they come? Let's say we have someone who feels absolutely no sexual attraction or lust for genitals and this person snaps such a controversial photo deliberately. Regarding their intention, they are more "pure" than the person photographing feet for their foot fetish. Really, I'd say with all, specific photographs of people, one should get permission, unless the individual to be photographed in doing something to blatantly be put in the spotlight. This doesn't feel complete, though. I guess, actually, I'd say, that we should all walk around naked, not care about privacy, and not feel any lust towards another's body, but that's some bull-level of idealism that ain't happenin'. It's hard to draw a line. I'd suppose some balance between the photographed and the photographer. Maybe, with this skirt business, there could be an understood level of natural exposure that occurs simply due to the nature of the clothing. This should be respected as a reasonable consequence of this sort of dress, and should be treated in similar manner to an incident of accidental exposure, unless the wearer is obviously trying to expose theirself. Distribution. This is simply tough. Some areas of ethics, man. With distribution, I'm gonna go with (and I'm rather just going with it, because some parts of ethics are just shit preference) this: if someone has specifically targeted another to photograph, this someone should request permission from the other person before distribution out of sympathy for the person's feelings regarding the issue. While one may say that this doesn't matter, ideally, and I'd agree, as people of interaction, socially, culturally, what-have-you, we ought regard the feelings of our fellows; and so, it is virtuous, from my perspective, to be compassionate in this regard. This applies, only, to accidental exposure. If the person of performance art struts, wrapped in kitchen plastic wrap, genitals primed, then this person is fair game, as they have committed to deliberate exposure. Since, our peeper probably won't feel too comfortable requesting this permission, and probably isn't aiming to be the most just, I'd probably say that he/she is acting in opposition towards a fair and cooperating society. Break to say: I am saying shit, once again. Whatever. That's ethics for you. With this child pornography aspect. Real quick, I'm gonna make a statement regarding child pornography in general. I would say, if a person can watch child pornography and never take it to the next level, and if this pornography were acquired, incredibly, without an actual child being photographed (maybe, someone makes a painting or drawing of a naked child) then I don't think this person is in the wrong, as they are simply satisfying urges natural them, and in this circumstance, they are not hurting anyone. This circumstance, however, isn't not likely to occur often, if ever. What I wanted to say, though, is that I don't find the indulgence of child pornography as inherently wrong. In this more real scenario, though, of a child being photographed in accidental exposure, I'd say that it's wrong to capture or redistribute, because not only is a person being taken advantage of in a moment of unintention and ignorance, but also, this person, even if aware of their circumstance (that they have exposed theirself) couldn't properly, in my eyes, give consent to the taking of photographs. Problem: what about good ol' family videos, where one of the kids lost their bathing suit and running around all free-willie? Obviously, one could say that there is no malicious intent here, but some family moment of record-keeping. I sigh. This is so damn grey. Excluding anomalies such as the above, I posit a consideration of other's feelings, if they knew, and genuine respect of other's boundaries, while considering the intent of exposure and one's own intent for photographing.
I did street photography for a few years so I've been following the laws regarding photographing in public etc. The long and the short of it is, if something is on public display, it is legal to photograph it (unless there's police there forbidding it, like in case of some high security places, or an interior like a museum not allowing photographs etc). Obviously, classic upskirting is photographing things which aren't on display, but are hidden under the skirt. But in the case of a competent adult sitting in a skirt with legs open for all to see, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. My rule was always, if I'm focusing on someone in particular, I will attempt to make eye contact with them, smile and put a question face on, or nod, and if they smile back or nod I know they don't mind having their picture taken by a stranger. Even though I am within my legal rights to take their picture anyway, I will offer courtesy, and if I get a frown back I won't take the picture. Feet are on display. People have fetishes for anything from feet, hands, ears, umbrellas, raincoats, mannequins...Literally anything can be a fetish. It isn't illegal to photograph, although, a weird guy going around snapping pics of women's feet is likely to get chased away if someone notices. I suppose he could argue back, but usually they are embarrassed enough to just give up and leave.
I think inserting some part of the camera or the phone into the upskirt photographer's rectum would be a perfectly reasonable response if the pic was taken without permission. That should be legal. Maybe there could still be some limitations as to the inserted item's size, maybe that you should use a little lube like lip gloss, vaseline, a bit of spit or something...
Am I right in thinking that, if I opted to wear a kilt (in the traditional manner) and then sat with knees apart and somewhere fairly high up, I could be prosecuted for Indecent Exposure?
I've learned in my two years of high school photography (teachers rule, I'm not sure if there are true rules, both of our ways are right) that you don't photograph someone without your permission. I think it's safe to assume that the person didn't ask to stick his camera up her skirt. And the whole feet thing goes the same way: ask or otherwise make contact with the subject. It's creepy no matter what it is, but a camera up a woman's skirt is wrong in a million different ways.
The photos suppressed as evidence? 5th amendment maybe? Since they are his photos does he have to incriminate himself with them?
