Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Up-Skirts OKFollow

#52 Mar 06 2014 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's not "ok". It's just not "illegal". You can hold both of those ideas in your head at the same time, can't you? I don't like people taking picutres of my bald spot, but that probably shouldn't be illegal. It probably shouldn't be illegal even if I normally wear a hat and take it off for the pledge of aligence or whatever. I don't think it's "ok" to burn an American Flag because you're sad that gays can get married. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Contrary to what you've been told, the purpose of legislation isn't to enforce and inflict your personal fears and hang ups on the rest of the world. THERE ARE NO DAMAGES WHEN SOMEONE TAKES A PHOTO OF A FULLY CLOTHED PERSON IN PUBLIC. That's the point. It's not "ok" for paparazzi to expose famous cheating spouses. There are millions of things that aren't "ok" that we allow to be legal to avoid harm. Once this is illegal, then obviously "attempting" it will be made illegal. So to protect your @#%^ing precious magic underpants, some poor sod is going to end up in prison because someone thinks he tried to take a picture of something.

It's not worth it. Not remotely.


Of course I understand that. However, we're not talking about taking a picture of a "fully clothed person." We're talking about taking a picture up someone's skirt. There's a difference there, and I don't see how peeping at someone in a restroom or a changing room is all that different. People go into closed stalls to disrobe for a reason, just like someone puts clothing over certain parts of their body for a reason. An invasion of privacy IS damaging, in my opinion.

lolgaxe wrote:
You have an expectation of privacy when in the restroom, whether it's the one in your house or a port-a-john in the middle of the desert.


I have an expectation of privacy under my skirt, as well.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#53 Mar 06 2014 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
An invasion of privacy IS damaging, in my opinion.
How is this damaging? What are the damages?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#54 Mar 06 2014 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
An invasion of privacy IS damaging, in my opinion.
How is this damaging? What are the damages?


Mental distress...? What are the damage if a stranger insists on watching you take a sh*t in a public restroom? What are the damages of someone being a peeping tom? What are the damages of having a peep hole in a hotel room and spying on people?

Illegal invasion of privacy is already a thing.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#55 Mar 06 2014 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,047 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
An invasion of privacy IS damaging, in my opinion.
How is this damaging? What are the damages?


Psychological damage. It could be distressing for some women to have their up-skirted undies posted online for strange men to whack off to, especially if they somehow become identified.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#56 Mar 06 2014 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Are you confusing Psychological damage with feeling uncomfortable? Because it's not the same thing. We don't criminalize causing mental distress. Remember, this is about an action that would result in Jail time.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 4:17pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#57 Mar 06 2014 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
******
43,069 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I have an expectation of privacy under my skirt, as well.
Which only means no one can physically go into your skirt to take pictures or install cameras.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Mar 06 2014 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,362 posts
Different people have different thresholds. What makes someone uncomfortable may cause another to break down. It seems pretty easy to see how something like this has the potential to cause harm, even if it doesn't every time.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#59 Mar 06 2014 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Are you confusing Psychological damage with feeling uncomfortable?


No, I'm not.

Sir Xsarus wrote:
Because it's not the same thing. We don't criminalize causing mental distress.


We do criminalize invasion of privacy, however. And award damages from mental distress. Since you asked about damages, that was my answer.

lolgaxe wrote:
Which only means no one can physically go into your skirt to take pictures or install cameras.


"Into?" As in, between my legs and under my skirt...?

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 4:20pm by Belkira
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#60 Mar 06 2014 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
someproteinguy wrote:
Different people have different thresholds. What makes someone uncomfortable may cause another to break down. It seems pretty easy to see how something like this has the potential to cause harm, even if it doesn't every time.

Winter + someone being rude can cause someone to break down, we don't talk about criminalizing rudeness.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#61 Mar 06 2014 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,047 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Are you confusing Psychological damage with feeling uncomfortable? Because it's not the same thing. We don't criminalize causing mental distress. Remember, this is about an action that would result in Jail time.


Going back to religious stuff, what if the woman's boyfriend/husband divorces her because she's been "violated"? Or, more likely, starts stalking subways to punch photographers? Slut-shaming is well and alive in our country, even when the women in question was not actually being slutty.

I think the solution for this isn't for us to abandon skirts. We just need bloomers to make a comeback. Smiley: nod
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#62 Mar 06 2014 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Catwho wrote:
Going back to religious stuff, what if the woman's boyfriend/husband divorces her because she's been "violated"? Or, more likely, starts stalking subways to punch photographers? Slut-shaming is well and alive in our country, even when the women in question was not actually being slutty.


It also put me in mind of the golfer who killed herself after being outed for being a MTF. I know there was more going on there, but that could easily happen here, as well.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#63 Mar 06 2014 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,362 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Different people have different thresholds. What makes someone uncomfortable may cause another to break down. It seems pretty easy to see how something like this has the potential to cause harm, even if it doesn't every time.

Winter + someone being rude can cause someone to break down, we don't talk about criminalizing rudeness.
I dunno, loud or disruptive behavior in public commonly can earn you a fine or what not if it's egregious enough. Seems like you could apply something similar here at the very minimum.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 2:37pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#64 Mar 06 2014 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,069 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
"Into?" As in, between my legs and under my skirt...?]
No, "physically" is the key word.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#65 Mar 06 2014 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,139 posts
Illegal invasion of privacy is already a thing.

If it's about privacy, than it should be any photograph. A law I'm fine with, incidentally. What's the "special" part about your skirt that makes it subject to literally locking someone up in jail for invading it's privacy, but not my bald spot, or someone's birthmark, or a fat person disliking a photo being taken at all, or someone who thinks a camera steals their @#%^ing soul?

Oh right, sex. The magic tipping point is that Creepy Bill is going to masturbate later. So we're going to make a *special* law to make your clothed pubic area so private it leads to jail time if someone photos it, but you know, two layers of clothes, that's all good fun to take a picture.

Do you really not get it? I realize it's hard to get past the 9 year old "but this could actually happen to ME and I DONT LIKE IT" part of it, but seriously.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#66 Mar 06 2014 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
"Into?" As in, between my legs and under my skirt...?]
No, "physically" is the key word.


I disagree. When someone is thrusting their cell phone between my legs to take a picture of my (hopefully panty-clad) vagina without my consent, they are invading my privacy. I am actually incredibly surprised this is being disputed.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#67 Mar 06 2014 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Illegal invasion of privacy is already a thing.

If it's about privacy, than it should be any photograph. A law I'm fine with, incidentally. What's the "special" part about your skirt that makes it subject to literally locking someone up in jail for invading it's privacy, but not my bald spot, or someone's birthmark, or a fat person disliking a photo being taken at all, or someone who thinks a camera steals their @#%^ing soul?

Oh right, sex. The magic tipping point is that Creepy Bill is going to masturbate later. So we're going to make a *special* law to make your clothed pubic area so private it leads to jail time if someone photos it, but you know, two layers of clothes, that's all good fun to take a picture.

Do you really not get it? I realize it's hard to get past the 9 year old "but this could actually happen to ME and I DONT LIKE IT" part of it, but seriously.



I don't care if they're going to masturbate to it or not. My vagina is private. You are not allowed to look at it without my permission. And wearing a skirt does not give you permission to look at my vagina. If I lift my skirt up on the subway and you snap a pic, good on you. I gave you permission by showing my vagina in public.

Invasion of privacy is not a "special" law. It's a thing. Just like being a peeping tom is against the law. I don't understand how this is any different. You can try to insult me by calling it juvenile or stupid, that's fine. You have not explained how this is not an invasion of privacy any more so than hiding in the bushes outside someone's window and watching them change, sneaking into a restroom and putting a mirror under the partition, or barging in while someone is trying on clothes at Macy's.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#68 Mar 06 2014 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,362 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I don't care if they're going to masturbate to it or not. My vagina is private. You are not allowed to look at it without my permission. And wearing a skirt does not give you permission to look at my vagina.
Given that most of the female public would likely agree with you, I don't see how they don't reword the law in a way that makes this illegal again, and likely promptly. A poorly worded law certainly doesn't help anyone, especially if it allows it to be applies incorrectly, but this is behavior people generally want protection from in the end.

Where there's a will there's a way or something.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#69 Mar 06 2014 at 4:57 PM Rating: Default
Cameras should be illegal.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#70 Mar 06 2014 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Remember, this is about an action that would result in Jail time.

Not necessarily. Could just be a fine in most instances. That said, I've put about zero effort into thinking of potential legislation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Mar 06 2014 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,069 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I disagree.
That's fine, but again like your comparison, the right to privacy in the areas you mentioned are from within the designated area, not from outside it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Mar 06 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I disagree.
That's fine, but again like your comparison, the right to privacy in the areas you mentioned are from within the designated area, not from outside it.


Someone doesn't have to enter my house in order to invade my privacy by peering into my windows.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#73 Mar 06 2014 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,069 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Someone doesn't have to enter my house in order to invade my privacy by peering into my windows.
Taking pictures from the street isn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Mar 06 2014 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,626 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Someone doesn't have to enter my house in order to invade my privacy by peering into my windows.
Taking pictures from the street isn't.
I don't know about US laws so I'm not 100% certain but I'm pretty sure taking pictures looking into the house is still a violation of privacy laws.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#75 Mar 06 2014 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Someone doesn't have to enter my house in order to invade my privacy by peering into my windows.
Taking pictures from the street isn't.


Taking pictures from outside my window is.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#76 Mar 06 2014 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Someone doesn't have to enter my house in order to invade my privacy by peering into my windows.
Taking pictures from the street isn't.
I don't know about US laws so I'm not 100% certain but I'm pretty sure taking pictures looking into the house is still a violation of privacy laws.


Im sorry I was taking a picture of that tree and you just happened to walk by the window naked at the same time. Im a big fan of nature shots. Maybe next time close your curtains.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#77 Mar 06 2014 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,362 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Someone doesn't have to enter my house in order to invade my privacy by peering into my windows.
Taking pictures from the street isn't.
I don't know about US laws so I'm not 100% certain but I'm pretty sure taking pictures looking into the house is still a violation of privacy laws.
I think there's some grayness there. We had a thread on this a while back yes? Someone snapped a picture from an overpass of someone exercising topless or something in their house?

It's all a blur honestly.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#78 Mar 06 2014 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
I just don't understand how it can be illegal to expose yourself in public, but it's not illegal to take pictures up a woman's skirt. That baffles me.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#79 Mar 06 2014 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,572 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Someone doesn't have to enter my house in order to invade my privacy by peering into my windows.
Taking pictures from the street isn't.
I don't know about US laws so I'm not 100% certain but I'm pretty sure taking pictures looking into the house is still a violation of privacy laws.
I think there's some grayness there. We had a thread on this a while back yes? Someone snapped a picture from an overpass of someone exercising topless or something in their house?

It's all a blur honestly.


It was a man who video taped a woman masturbating in her room from a subway platform. Then the guy got in trouble. I think it was Elinda who mentioned that if tables were turned, and the guy was masturbating in his room exposed to the public, that the guy would probably have been in trouble rather than the woman who happened to catch it. I agreed, and think I posted a news article where it happened in Canada, man got in trouble for indecent exposure for masturbating in his living room, and the neighbors saw him.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#80 Mar 06 2014 at 5:34 PM Rating: Default
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I just don't understand how it can be illegal to expose yourself in public, but it's not illegal to take pictures up a woman's skirt. That baffles me.


Because then anyone can make a gripe that something makes them uncomfortable and you would bog down courts with bullsh*t cases that are just a waste of taxdollars and public time. I mean honestly you have to be able to see this.

Some people are creepy. If you don't want a chance your vajayjay might be snapped in a picture, wear pants.


Edited, Mar 6th 2014 6:35pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#81 Mar 06 2014 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,362 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Given that most of the female public would likely agree with you, I don't see how they don't reword the law in a way that makes this illegal again, and likely promptly.
Huh, I was right for once. That was fast. Smiley: lol

Linky.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 3:35pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#82 Mar 06 2014 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,069 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
That baffles me.
What's baffling about laws not catching up to technology? Paying someone for sex is illegal. Paying someone for sex in front of a camera is not.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 Mar 06 2014 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I have an expectation of privacy under my skirt, as well.
Which only means no one can physically go into your skirt to take pictures or install cameras.

Except the NSA, of course.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#84 Mar 06 2014 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Friar Bijou wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I have an expectation of privacy under my skirt, as well.
Which only means no one can physically go into your skirt to take pictures or install cameras.

Except the NSA, of course.


Or the TSA.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#85 Mar 06 2014 at 6:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I just don't understand how it can be illegal to expose yourself in public, but it's not illegal to take pictures up a woman's skirt. That baffles me.


Because walking around in your underwear isn't usually a violation of the law? Kinda for the reason Smash alluded to. How do you legally make a distinction between a bikini and a bra and panties? If the answer is about what the woman choose to wear/expose, that's a valid point if the guy is taking pictures of her in a place she'd expect to have privacy, but a subway isn't. And if the answer is that she was "covered", that's not really true. If someone is able to take a picture of you, without physically violating your personal space, and that picture has an image of your panties, your panties were not covered. It's not like the light that reached the camera moved around corners to bring an image of your panties to the lens. There had to be a direct line of sight between the two. In a public space.

How do you differentiate this from the case of a woman lifting up her skirt? You can't. Not legally. Sure, we can assume she didn't intend to sit in such a way that if someone placed a camera down by the floor at just the right angle, it would have a direct line of sight to her panties, but at the end of the day, she did sit in such a way. Doesn't change that the guys a creeper for taking the picture, but trying to pass a law that attempts to determine the motivation of the person taking the picture and the person in the picture in order to differentiate between a legal picture of the fabric covering a woman's vagina and an illegal one is nearly impossible. And attempting to do so will create more problems than it fixes.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 4:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Mar 06 2014 at 6:20 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
That baffles me.
What's baffling about laws not catching up to technology? Paying someone for sex is illegal. Paying someone for sex in front of a camera is not.


That's my example!
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#87 Mar 06 2014 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They did just pass a law so it seems sort of moot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Mar 06 2014 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
******
43,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
And attempting to do so will create more problems than it fixes.]
Iraq, Afghanistan.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Mar 06 2014 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,825 posts
Do the paparazzi have a union? Because I can see them pressuring the judge in this case not to set a precedent that would make pictures of Lindsay Lohan getting out of her limo a felony.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#90 Mar 06 2014 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
******
43,069 posts
Pictures of Lindsay Lohan should be a felony.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 Mar 06 2014 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,362 posts
TirithRR wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Someone doesn't have to enter my house in order to invade my privacy by peering into my windows.
Taking pictures from the street isn't.
I don't know about US laws so I'm not 100% certain but I'm pretty sure taking pictures looking into the house is still a violation of privacy laws.
I think there's some grayness there. We had a thread on this a while back yes? Someone snapped a picture from an overpass of someone exercising topless or something in their house?

It's all a blur honestly.


It was a man who video taped a woman masturbating in her room from a subway platform. Then the guy got in trouble. I think it was Elinda who mentioned that if tables were turned, and the guy was masturbating in his room exposed to the public, that the guy would probably have been in trouble rather than the woman who happened to catch it. I agreed, and think I posted a news article where it happened in Canada, man got in trouble for indecent exposure for masturbating in his living room, and the neighbors saw him.
Yeah that sounds right. Something like that. Smiley: lol

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#92 Mar 06 2014 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,626 posts
Debalic wrote:
Do the paparazzi have a union? Because I can see them pressuring the judge in this case not to set a precedent that would make pictures of Lindsay Lohan getting out of her limo a felony.
Since she's famous she has very little protection from privacy laws as is, you still can't take photos looking inside her house but everything she does has news value and that trumps her privacy so if she sits with her legs spread it's perfectly ok to photograph that and sell the photos to a trashy magazine.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#93 Mar 06 2014 at 10:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,963 posts
Quote:
overly literal interpenetration of a law

That's an oxymoron, laws need to be interpreted literally by the courts, or we feed the judicial activism trolls (it's only when it's the other guys law that's getting loosely interpreted that it becomes judicial activism, by the way).

Quote:
an invasion of privacy

That's a conclusion, and a nice thing to protect against.

Quote:
(a reasonable) expectation of privacy

That's the test. A public place that's been designated as private (public restroom) is a private place for this consideration. I didn't word that really well, but I think I made my point.

I'll just add that the story in the OP is creepy, and if it was my daughter and I was on the subway and saw it happening, I'd probably try and pop the guy (I'm getting too old to guarantee I'd actually land a punch). But trying to legislate this stuff would be madness.

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#94 Mar 06 2014 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
They did legislate it. And if you hit the guy you would be charged with aggravated assault.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#95 Mar 06 2014 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
477 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What if I shout "fire" up a woman's skirt?

You'll just be exercising your religious freedom.
#96 Mar 06 2014 at 10:34 PM Rating: Good
******
43,069 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
They did legislate it. And if you hit the guy you would be charged with aggravated assault.
Defense of Other or Provocation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Mar 06 2014 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,963 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
They did legislate it. And if you hit the guy you would be charged with aggravated assault.

I take it you're joking, since the court said it did not violate state law. And I live in New York so I don't know how it would be aggravated assault, since there is no aggravating circumstance. Especially considering I said I didn't think I'd land the punch. But, you were joking, right?

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#98 Mar 06 2014 at 10:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's linked upthread. The Massachusetts state legislature passed a law almost immediately following the court ruling. It was waiting now for the governor to sign it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Mar 07 2014 at 5:37 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,139 posts
It's linked upthread. The Massachusetts state legislature passed a law almost immediately following the court ruling. It was waiting now for the governor to sign it.

Oh, thank goodness. I was very concerned that we wouldn't pass a new law based on an emotional response to the current news cycle. What a relief!

This is how legislation should be written.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#100 Mar 07 2014 at 7:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Mar 07 2014 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,965 posts
Solution: Mirrored underpants.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help