Wisconsin recently struck down a law concerning photographic voyeurism because it was overly broad as written. The court agreed that there should be a law against the behaviour of the defendant of the case–he went up a tree to photograph her girlfriend in states of undress.
But the law to ban nude photos without subject’ permission was deemed to broad and include some of the more famous photos of our time.
How about we create a law that covers invasive voyeurism.
How about this:
A person may not, without the subject’s permission, take a photo of the subject when that subject is nude:
If the angle from which the photo was made would come from an area that the photographer must trespass;
If the angle from and or of which the photo was made came from directly underneath the subject;
If the subject was in a hygiene/bathing facility or designated changing area-- which includes but is not limited to: a bathroom, a locker room or bedroom.
How is that so far? Feel free to comment or add some more.
Rather than try to identify every situation in which it should be illegal, why not state somthing like “if the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy”? Or was that tried in the law?
How about this: The subject must have been given informed consent. Just like in medical testing, informed consent is the magic bullet when it comes to ducking responsibility after the fact.
Yes, the courts ruled that those similar provisions were too broad. That is why I the proposal is purposefully narrow. These are the most common circumstances in which invasive voyeurism occur. In these circumstances, there is no real serious reason to photograph someone in the nude or upskirt, unless it is for prurient reasons.
Note that the proposal should not cover ‘right place, right time’ photos. The proposed bill should cover only circumstances in which the photographer went beyond out of his/her way to obtain the photo.
I am not sure when I had my last expectation of privacy. Probably when I was visiting my doctor.
In the electronic world that we live in, I no longer have a sense of privacy nor a need for it. My life is fairly open to those who ask … and if anyone wants to take a picture of me sunning myself at the beach, or through an open window in my bathroom, then so it is … I should have closed that window anyhow!
The only place I would think of drawing a line is when other criminal acts must be undertaken to obtain photos, videos, or audios. This would include, but not be limited to, situations of hidden cameras planted in homes, trespassing to take pictures from beneath windows, etc.
If someone can use a telephoto lens to take pictures of you through your exposed bedroom window then buy blinds.
As always, it’s the victim’s fault. She should have KNOWN that there would be some perv in her back yard in a tree trying to take a picture, and so therefore should have not gotten naked until the shades were drawn, the curtains closed, and she was safely in a windowless closet? Give me a break.
It would seem to me that existing trespass and peeping tom laws would mostly suffice in these cases. If a new law were to be specific enough to prevent legitimate uses of accidental pictures, it could be worded simply enough. There is no need to list specifics; once you list a specific situation you wish to ban, you give a perv some loophole to allow him to take pictures of unsuspecting naked people.
But the fault never lies with the person who has been violated. People have an expectation to NOT have their selves exploited without their own knowledge or consent. It is never the victims fault.
“As always, it’s the victim’s fault. She should have KNOWN that there would be some perv in her back yard in a tree trying to take a picture, and so therefore should have not gotten naked until the shades were drawn, the curtains closed, and she was safely in a windowless closet? Give me a break.”
“But the fault never lies with the person who has been violated. People have an expectation to NOT have their selves exploited without their own knowledge or consent. It is never the victims fault.”
I agree that in this case the victim had a clear expectation of privacy. Nobody reasonably expects that somebody will be looking into the back window of a house from the backyard. However, while “if that girl was undressed, why did she have her window and curtains open” is clearly a bad call, the blanket “it is never the victim’s fault” doesn’t ring true either.
I live in a large city where some areas have block after block of tall apartment buildings. Several of my friends, men and women, who live in high-rise buildings have a pair of binoculars. Yes, women as well as men. Due to the sheer number of windows facing other windows, anyone who lives in such an apartment realizes that anything done in front of an unshaded window is probably being viewed, even if only inadvertantly by someone just looking out their window, and they act accordingly.
A bit utopian, especially for U.S. and other Anglo-based societies, but none of this would be as much of a problem if people were less unnecessarily ashamed of their bodies. The tabooization of uncovered skin (where’s the logic?) has created all these issues.
