I think **AZCowboy ** pretty much pegged it. But without knowing it. So all a woman has to do is stop wearing skirts huh? Seems like upskirting is causing someone to give up a certain right isn’t it?
Three pages. Wow. Personaly, I think that is is easy to make a legal claim against upskirting. It is legal to take pictures of anyone as long as they are in public. Thus, I can take a picture of a women who has tucked he skirt into the back of her pantyhose. I would be a jewrk, but it’s legal. I see no arguement here. However, while I am all for catching glimpses down womens blouses, I believe that it is hard to argue that walking up to a women, concealing a camera in a gym bag, and positioning that bag so it will aim up her skirt can be called " a violation of an expectation", a vague, legal sounding term, (warning: Scott knows nothing about the law, nor does he remember if this point has alrady been made.) deserving of a serious fine Unfortunaly, I’ll bet that not only will this be hard to enforce, but the legislature will try to reach too far on this.
Did you miss the whole discussion earlier about this attitude being basically a “blame the victim” mindset? I mean, why not go one step further and require any woman who wants to step out in public to be concealed from head to toe? That’d be the Saudi Arabian solution, I think, and look how everybody loves and respects THEM!
Damniit, I meant to say “hard not to agree”, as in
:smack:
This is a whole mess of slippery slopes. Not including those slopes with cameras on them. What about women standing on grating? Can someone beneath take a picture? Stairs? What about a woman leaning over and revealing her cleavage? She didn’t give anyone ‘permission’ but it’s there for everyone to see. What wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are permissible? Just 400 to 700 nm?
To say that one has no reasonable expectation of privacy outside of their home is not blaming the victim, bad analogies aside. Your take-it-to-the-extreme analogy is similarly not helpful.
A more helpful analogy might be to compare the issue of upskirting with that of taking a driver’s picture as part of an automated speed limit inforcement endeavor. In both instances the subject of the photo is in public and certain aspects of their person are visible to a camera. Is it a violation of privacy rights to take that photo? Some say it is, others say it is not.
It is the permission aspect in both cases that drives people nuts. Drivers are upset that their picture was taken as they did not feel that there was consent (usually this is coupled with a desire to keep some third party ignorant of their whereabouts). The same things occurs with persons that have had their pictures taken in public, upskirt or otherwise. Of course, there is a public good involved in taking pictures of speeding drivers, whereas there is not such good in upskirting.
The issue of defining limits has been raised here and I really think this is the key. If a law that forbids upskirting but does not forbid legitimate photography, even if there is an accidental view of genitalia, could be drafted, then great. The problem is that this would be extremely difficult. For example, Paris Hilton seems not to wear underwear very often and there are a number of legitimate photos of her circulating that just happen to capture a bit more than perhaps she thought she was showing, not that I would ever lower myself to peek at such images. 
If the law would exclude that type of photo (it can be argued that she knew what she was doing her and that there was no intent to actually capture such subject matter) while simultaneously nailing upskirters, then we’d have a good law. Perhaps I’m having a failure of imagination, but I can’t see us getting such a good law.
CJ
Right? What right do you refer to?
Women can continue to choose to wear skirts. And if they absolutely positively don’t want their panties to be photographed - cover 'em up!
Victim? I wouldn’t want women to be restricted in what they can wear. But they have to take some personal responsibility for what they choose to wear - in public.
To the Paris Hilton point that cj finn makes, if your clothing choice permits unwanted exposure, from whatever angle, be responsible for those choices.
I have yet to hear from a legal eagle explaining any “right to privacy” in public, even based on some expectation of privacy. Is there such a thing?
The newest trend in digital camera misuse, upburkaing. I wonder what they have on under there?
There is no limit to the analogies.
How about paparazzi? They often portray their subjects in the worst possible light without the need to show their underwear.
The last time I went to the local try-N-save, I counted 9 cameras looking out over the parking lot.
I used to work for a P.I. (I spent all of my time sitting in a car on a railroad siding listening to late night talk radio). They took pictures of people with back injuries and the like while they mowed their lawns or carried in their groceries. Those pictures were often taken on a person’s private property.
In each of these cases, the law-- depending on the jurisdiction, I believe (IANAL)-- defends the right of the picture taker.
The only way to draft a law that would have any impact would be to go the public nuisance route as was done in the case of the Japanese P.O.
…either that or perigenital electroshock…
Wrong link, supposed to be this
I understand what you’re saying, but I still have trouble *fully * understanding it. My panties are covered up, even in a skirt. You have to take extra effort to see them.
I really don’t see how this is comparable to someone taking a pic of me driving.
Anaamika, are your comments addressed to me, or cj finn? I can’t address the “pic while driving” analogy - it wasn’t mine, and I didn’t comment on it.
I’m not defending upskirters - I think it is despicable. However, I’m not ready to call them criminals. Further, I really don’t think US law (currently) supports this “expectation of privacy” so many have asserted.
The first comment is addressed to you. I’m not really talking about rights, however, you say:
“To the Paris Hilton point that cj finn makes, if your clothing choice permits unwanted exposure, from whatever angle, be responsible for those choices.”
However, I don’t see this because my panties are not exposed normally, not even in a skirt. I don’t understand why I should have to be responsible for covering it. And I also can’t comprehend why this shouldn’t be a criminal or at least fine-able activity.
Thanks for the clarification.
I understand that when you wear a skirt, you are not normally exposing anything. But what about those abnormal circumstances? Can you handle the “risk” that, on some strange ocassion, you just might expose something? If you can, great, if you can’t, you should take steps to make sure nothing is ever exposed. Does that help explain my point?
It’s not that I’m necessarily against making it criminal, but I don’t think any statutes relating to privacy cover it today (perhaps public nuisance would work, as our OPer points out). But I’m also unsure of how one could craft such a law. Should Paris Hilton, wearing a micro mini without panties crawling out of a limo in front of a bunch of paparazzi be extended the same legal protections as a women in a full length skirt?
It is difficult to critique a law that doesn’t exist. Perhaps you could recommend some verbiage? What, exactly, would you criminalize?
I am not a lawyer, but earlier in the conversation I said something like the following: I think we should have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in regards to clothing, a legal term I have heard of before. Googling it
the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Now, what kind of cockamamie way could I apply this law? Well, it is illegal to expose oneself in public, so if a peeper should find that someone is----
Let’s stop that stupid line of reasoning right here. Let me try again. It should be legal, albeit it horrible for a paparazzi to take pictures of some celebrity scratching her ass, or taking out the trash while not wearing make up, assuming they have not trespassed to do so. If a man should happen to take a picture of a women bending over and he bets a picture down her blouse, it may or may have not been intentional, but it is legal. However, should he attempt to position a camera so that is aimed up her skirt while she is walking, well, that is invading her privacy in the legal sense. She has a expectation that a skirt of a certain length shall protect her from the gaze of all but the smallest midgets, and so the person who took the photo can be persecuted. Now, should she be wearing a mini which exposed her ass if she is even one stair step off the ground, all bets are off. I hereby nominate myself for the committee to determine what lengths of skirt allow easy viewing, and which do not. I promise to study the matter in depth. 
emphasis mine
I guess I’m willing to give really short midgets and precocious toddlers a break, but I do think that this issue needs to be addressed based on the behavior of the shooter. (The gender specific pronoun gets a pass this time.)
Imagine a moderately overweight middle aged man walking through a mall in a pair of yellow filp-flops and light blue sweat pants. (Bear with me.) Now, someone comes up and pulls down his pants while an opportunistic non-midget, non-toddler with a camera phone snaps a pic.
If the photographer is in cohoots with the pantser division, they have committed an offense. (misdemeanor in my books. FWIW) If the photographer just happens to be there, but knowingly takes the pic (underwear or no) they are within their rights and the pantser is the nuisance.
Posting the pictures on the internet would seem to compund the issue, but that’s obviously a different issue.
Pulling down someone’s pants seems to me to be pretty close to positioning oneself to get a panty picture, especially if one’s intent is to get a picture to show off. I imagine it is the rare upskirter who merely looks at their photos and I’m sure someone has or soon will use this approach to humiliate their friends.
¡bookend threadkill!
Your underparts ARE exposed when you are in public- to the floor. They are perfectly visible from some angles and there is always the chance that someone might see and/or photograph them. If these people arn’t doing any other harrassing activities, there isn’t much we can legally do to stop them without seriously overhauling our entire concept of publicness and privacy. Luckly this is rare enough that it shouldn’t be a factor in anyone’s lives, and if someone is so paranoid that they would consider no longer wearing skirts, they probably shouldn’t be wearing skirts anyway because there are a hundred ways for someone to accidently see your stuff in one.
I find it disgusting that not wearing a skirt to a job interview will make you lose the job opportunity. I believe it, because this is a sexist (but getting better) society, but I hate it.
I don’t wear skirts except on very special occasions, and they are always floor length. My thighs touch, as well, so one would get a great upskirt shot of my knees (mmm, knees) if one were to try, but I would still feel violated. If one were to take a shot of my knees while I was in shorts, however, I wouldn’t, as they are already publicly viewable.
Women shouldn’t be blamed here, I guess is what I’m trying to say.