Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
acludem said:The article didn't say the pictures were "up a kid's skirt" it said 12 of them were of specific parts of people's bodies. Unless these people were naked, they weren't nude photos. The law they quote is overly broad and I doubt this case will stand. Any photo or image can be used for sexual gratification, it's all in the eye of the beholder. It is ridiculous to use that as a standard to go after someone for taking pictures of fully clothed individuals at a public event.
acludem
no1tovote4 said:Have you gone onto google and done as I suggested yet? Young girls are victimized regularly on those up-skirt and down-shirt websites. The assumption is that he was taking pictures of people randomly and not specifically when the story states he was taking pictures of specific parts. What those sites usually do is show a picture of the innocent first, then a picture of up their skirt or down their shirt. Some of the pictures are likely of girls just walking around, it is the up-skirt etc pictures that were likely the ones that got the guy arrested.
GotZoom said:I will say again. If someone had pictures of that nature of my daughter, he's lucky the police officer got to him first.
If he is innocent, it will come out. He won't even go to court. Prosecutor will look at the pics, talk to the guy and it might all go away.
If not, he should fry.
America herself my friend. America herself. Her innocence has been taken and how can you put a price on that? How can you put a price on America's innocence man?!Who then has been hurt?
insein said:Why should he fry? Now if a father found these pics of his daughter or wife, then he IMO would have every right to go over and beat the shit out of the guy and they could then sue the guy for using their likeness without consent for profit. But the police and the government should not be arresting people for taking pictures.
Dont look now, but legal rights of privacy is pretty much what its about.insein said:...
Now if you want to talk legal rights of privacy that might be different. Taking someone's picture in public or staring at them lewdly without them knowing is not a crime. However using someone's likeness for financial gain without consent is a crime. These girls would have a legal right to sue these pervs if they ever used their images on the internet for financial gain as in these sites that you see. By and large though, most don't even know their picture is taken. Who then has been hurt?
GotZoom said:Why would it be ok for the father to beat the shit out of him but not ok for the police to arrest him?
If it is bad enough for dad to beat the shit out of him, it is bad enough to be arrested?
Here is a question for you.
You and your 13 year old daugher are at the beach. She has a "normal" 2-piece bathing suit for her age (you approve, etc). She is laying on her towel. You come back from a little walk down the beach and find a guy taking pictures of her.
I guess that is ok?
Now..before you beat the shit out of him, a police officer sees the same thing. Detains him and ... lo and behold...upon further investigation it seems there are a doze or so pictures of other females of all ages, say...10 - 30 - all in the bathing suits. Some closeups of breasts, their crotch, etc.
The cop wants to arrest him. Are you going to tell him to stop - that there is nothing wrong with him taking those pictures?
Abbey Normal said:I can add some first-person experience to this topic. When I was just around 15-16 years old, I was walking around the Auto Show in NYC with my boyfriend. A guy jumped up in front of me, quickly snapped my picture, and ran off. I can tell you that even though it was just a picture, I felt violated and taken advantage of. It's hard to explain, but it's true. I also felt uneasy for several days wondering what exactly he was going to do with my picture. It was a strange and uncomfortable feeling.