I was shocked when I read over our last
break that a Texas Court of Appeals had legalized “up skirts,” a form of
photography that involves individuals taking photos up the skirts of
unsuspecting women. I knew immediately
that I needed to investigate further and that I wanted to blog about it for my
next class.
The photographer in the case was initially
charged with a violation of “improper photography.” I had never heard of such a thing, but my
research revealed that the Texas statute: “Forbids photographs, video and other
electronic means in a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room
a) without consent and b) with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desires.”
Last month, the Texas Court of Appeals
struck down this law. Presiding judge
Sharon Keller wrote in the court’s opinion which stated in part, “Protecting
someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to
be the sort of ‘paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind’ that
the First Amendment was designed to guard against.”
I strongly support the First Amendment and the
right to free speech or expression. I
know censoring any speech, particularly those that you don’t agree with, is a
slippery slope to start down. However, I understand why many Americans were
outraged that individuals can now take public photographs, without consent and
with the intent to gratify sexual desires.
Want to know the real kicker in this case? The photographer who was initially charged,
Ronald Thompson, was taking underwater pictures of children’s private regions in
swimwear, without parental consent, at a San Antonio theme park. Apparently, that is now perfectly acceptable
in America – or at least in Texas.
Some of you plan on making a career out of
photography. I’m sure all of you resent
censorship of your work in any form. So,
my question to you this week is, “What do you think of this of this case? Were the photographer’s Frist Amendment
rights infringed upon when he was charged? Should there be a limit to “free
speech?” Answers are due no later than Monday,
October 27th, 2014.
This is disgusting. How could a group of people agree that something like this is okay? Or a judge for that matter.. I know in Japan they don't think doing things like this to children is wrong but here it is. Especially without parental consent. I'm sure in Japan they at least have parental consent or something of the sort. I sometimes feel like freedom of speech needs to be limited. There are a lot of messed up people in this country. Especially the ones in control of our government. I think this law needs to be canceled out. It's almost as bad as the Casey Anthony child where she murdered her child but then she was "innocent".
ReplyDeleteThat is awful. In no way should that be allowed. I guess "free speech" should have restrictions, not that that should have to be recognized. That is disgusting whoever would do that and they should be charged. It's even more awful that they would think of trying to do that underwater with children, especially without consent. This needs to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteHmm... this is a touchy issue, I am all about free speech/expression, but, I still think that a rule about the other subject's consent( if they are under the legal age limit for that state) the parent's consent, I know this sounds like a constriction, but given some of the people out there and their "artistic expression" needs to be reminded that sometimes it comes down to a moral issue.
ReplyDeleteTaking pictures of children's private sections does not make you a "photographer", it makes you a pedophile. I understand the protection of free speech but this is no longer a case of your rights being violated. Ronald Thompson was violating these children and that is what should have been addressed. Now if this "photographer" was working on a controversial piece and approached people to use them with their permission, then yes the courts would be violating his rights.
ReplyDeleteThis is unacceptable! Taking pictures up women skirts is not okay. I do not think this would be freedom of speech especially since it invades someone's privacy. In a sense I would consider this as some sort of sexual assault being the fact these women were not asked if these photographs could be taken.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't be able to take pics of naked girls that is very unacceptable. Sure you take pics for the beauty of things but not in that way. That's basically porn for yourself. that's gross and disgusting.
ReplyDeleteThat is so gross! They have made porn out there for a reason for that kind of stuff. I also don't think that taking those kinds of photos are part of "Freedom of Speech".
ReplyDeleteI would totally tear this person a new ass. That is totally wrong. By allowing this you are taking away a person's dignity but also their civil rights. No one should have the right to photograph another person's private areas without their consent. This is a totally disregard for that person. It shows a total lack of respect for that person. The guy that took the pics should have the hell beat out of him by the children's parents and the women he was photographing should be able to kick him as hard as they want in his private area, then take pics of it and post them on the web with a warning: "This is what happens when you try to be a pervert in public"!
ReplyDeleteIs that seriously a question? Where in the world does it say that child pornography or photographing women without their consent is okay? Being that I'm a photography major this does not sit well with me. This case is no were near "freedom of speech" no matter that argument. This is an invasion of a persons privacy that could be used for God knows even being posted on every form of social media. Also proving that people now have no respect for each other or a persons dignity. If this is considered acceptable behavior then the people of America has failed me once again. Where do we draw the line?
ReplyDeleteHere comes another case in which a crime is overlooked by the rights of the individual who committed it. This is not freedom of speech, its way out of line. First off, it should be a crime to photograph someones crotch in public or in private without their agreement. Second, its indecent and obviously a sexual offense to the woman. It is not okay and Texas needs to get their morale straight.
ReplyDeleteFree speech should be limited but only if it harms the citizens who are for a beneficial cause. His rights were not infringed upon in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI believe everyone has the right to their freedom of speech, but when it begins to inflict pain, suffering, or harassment on others is where I begin to have an issue. I think that our rights should not be limited, altered, or tweaked, however I believe a happy medium must be found in order to reach a consensus on this hot button issue.
ReplyDeleteI think us as human beings we tend to abuse our rights. Freedom of speech I believe was not intended to harm others or harass. But because we are all that selfish we overly exercise that right we make sure we point it out that we have the right to do so. I just think there should be a limit.."do unto others what you want them to do unto thee." Whoever passed the "up skirts" law in Texas is an animal. How can one stand behind such foolishness and be proud that they changed something in world. Someone in Texas, a decent human being should contest this, otherwise all pedophiles are going to move down there where they can do whatever they want without anyone stopping them.
ReplyDeleteI think in that case it should almost be considered child pornography. I think this should be illegal, espeacially if it involves children.
ReplyDeleteI think it might be a little much to have to blur out peoples faces in the background of like a documentary or something like it if they have not signed something, but taking sexual pictures of someone, anyone, without their knowledge and consent is just disgusting to me. I would say for the most part that I believe in freedom of speech, but not to this extend. I just generally believe that even though you might have the legal right to do something, you probably shouldn't if it is going to be harmful to your fellow human beings.
I think what he did was wrong and taking improper photos of women without their permission was illegal and invading into their personal privacy and he should be arrested for such an act that he did.
ReplyDeleteI believe what this photographer did was just down right wrong and disrespectful. Women and even young girls will be at risk of this happening to them just because they wear a skirt or dress. I think they need to put this law back into place and charge the photographer for his wrong doing. I do believe some people test the limits and boundaries when it comes to freedom of speech but I do think as Americans that we are still owed the right.
ReplyDeleteThis is so disturbing to me!! I feel no one should be violated in this way, and the fact that this is now legal blows my mind. I work at a restaurant where we wear skirts and to know that this kind of stuff is legal makes me very uncomfortable. And as for "free speach" I do feel some limitations are necessary, but where to set those limits is a tough decision to make, so I'm pretty back and fourth about "free speech".
ReplyDeleteThis is so disgusting and disturbing!! This should definitely be considered a sexual offense. That's such an invasion of privacy, especially to innocent children. No one should ever be able to take pictures of peoples' private areas without their consent.In no way do I believe that the photographer's First Amendment rights were infringed upon. I don't believe that taking "up skirt" photos fits in the category of "freedom of speech". This is almost as bad as sexual molestation to me. Absolutely appalling.
ReplyDeleteDisgusting! I read about this on a Facebook post someone shared. It is NOT OKAY for that man to do what he did. Taking pictures up skirts or dresses? Photographing children obscenely? What in the world would urge someone to do so? So degrading to women/children that someone would even attempt to do such a thing. I think the photographer should be charged for what he did!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm technically late with this answer... This is definitely a tough question to answer. While I think it is widely accepted that what this photographer was doing was extremely wrong, it is hard to define into words exactly what is and what is not violating freedom of expression. In this photographers sick mind, he was simply creating art and should not be stifled by the government for sharing his work. I, however, absolutely think he should be put behind bars for invading others privacy. They had not given any consent to be the subject of his sick projects, therefore he has no right to, at the very least, give those photos to the public.
ReplyDeleteI think that what was done was totally inappropriate. He should have gotten the ladies permission before doing anything that had do with another human, and I think he should be arrested for that
ReplyDeleteYeah, I totally don't think that it's acceptable. I don't consider that as "free speech" because they aren't really expressing anything. They're taking inappropriate pictures of little kids in water parks without their consent. This crosses every line. This isn't ok at all.
ReplyDeleteI feel court findings such as these give further fuel to pedophilia and other forms sexually charged issues not normally considered acceptable in society. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech but not at the expense and possible exploitation of children or anyone for that matter in a sexually viewed way.
ReplyDeletei don't agree with this at all ,someone should definitely fight against this seriously. this does not count as freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how any of this is legal. I mean by allowing people to photograph and post pictures of women and children's genitals, aren't they promoting rape and pedophilia?
ReplyDeleteHow is it infringing on free speech? He can say whatever he wants. That's not the issue. He took a picture of someone's crotch without their permission. That should be classified under harassment/sexual harassment, stalking, etc.