Female Privilege, part 43989222

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Rick Trotter has been calling Memphis Grizzlies games since 2006, but the team announced they’d fired him this afternoon after the Shelby County Sheriff’s office put out a warrant for his arrest. The warrant lists three charges for photographing persons without consent, issued today.

...
[he was taking upskirt photos of females in church]
...

Trotter worked at Downtown Church until May, when he was let go. The church put out a statement decrying his "moral failures of a sexual nature:"...

http://deadspin.com/report-grizzlies-fired-pa-announcer-after-accusations-1785061641

See?! Ever since Obama women think they have safe spaces where their underwear cannot be photographed. If women think their underwear should be private, then they should leave them at home.

AND to top it off, this guy got fired and he hasn't even had a whole trial in court. Just another example of how Obama is ruining the country with a crazy politically correct agenda. I mean, everyone is supposed to get a fair trial in court before being fired and that changed once Obama.

Thank you.

 

[Derec]

He should have come down to Georgia.
Georgia court rules upskirt pictures are legal
Land of the free, home of the Braves.

 

[Bronzeage]

Most state criminal codes don't contain statutes to prohibit things which are not technically possible, so tiny cameras which produce high definition photos caught everyone by surprise.

There was a case in Louisiana several years ago, where a man installed cameras in the ceiling air conditioner vents of his neighbor's house. The cameras might have gone undetected, but the idiot couldn't resist making smart assed remarks to the woman who lived there, about her night gown. It made her suspicious enough to spot the cameras in the vents.

A few years earlier, she had left a key with her neighbor while she was gone on an extended trip, and never retrieved it.

As the law was written, the man had done nothing wrong. He had been given access to the home by the owner and there was no law which addressed installing cameras without a person's knowledge. The legislature corrected this omission very quickly.

 

[JonA]

I can understand how and why private institutions would ban such behavior but I cannot for the life of me figure out why it should be illegal.

 

[Angry Floof]

He should have come down to Georgia.
Georgia court rules upskirt pictures are legal
Land of the free, home of the Braves.

Of course you would think that's cute you creepy rapist worm.

 

[laughing dog]

I can understand how and why private institutions would ban such behavior but I cannot for the life of me figure out why it should be illegal.

You cannot figure out why it should be illegal to
1) go into someone's home and place cameras in it and take pictures of them without their knowledge, or
2) take pictures of someone's undergarments without their permission, or
3) photographing someone without their consent?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I can understand how and why private institutions would ban such behavior but I cannot for the life of me figure out why it should be illegal.

I know right. Just another example of female privilege!!

 

[JonA]

I can understand how and why private institutions would ban such behavior but I cannot for the life of me figure out why it should be illegal.

You cannot figure out why it should be illegal to
1) go into someone's home and place cameras in it and take pictures of them without their knowledge, or
2) take pictures of someone's undergarments without their permission, or
3) photographing someone without their consent?

I'm talking only about the issue in the OP.

 

[JonA]

I can understand how and why private institutions would ban such behavior but I cannot for the life of me figure out why it should be illegal.

I know right. Just another example of female privilege!!

Huh??

Anyone can be photographed in public.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm talking only about the issue in the OP.

and then...

Anyone can be photographed in public.

only the op?

 

[Bronzeage]

I know right. Just another example of female privilege!!

Huh??

Anyone can be photographed in public.

The right to privacy is based on a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why public toilet stalls have doors. In most states, women(and men) have an expectation that what is hidden by their skirt will remain hidden. In the great scheme of things, no real harm was done, but prohibiting upskirt videos is just one of those things we do to keep order.

Imagine you are standing at a urinal and realize the person beside you is filming everything.

 

[credoconsolans]

He should have come down to Georgia.
Georgia court rules upskirt pictures are legal
Land of the free, home of the Braves.

Of course you would think that's cute you creepy rapist worm.

Worry not. The state legislature is taking quick steps to correct this omission.

 

[JonA]

Huh??

Anyone can be photographed in public.

The right to privacy is based on a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why public toilet stalls have doors. In most states, women(and men) have an expectation that what is hidden by their skirt will remain hidden. In the great scheme of things, no real harm was done, but prohibiting upskirt videos is just one of those things we do to keep order.

Imagine you are standing at a urinal and realize the person beside you is filming everything.

At issue is whether someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

I find the whole notion oxymoronic: only an unreasonable person would expect privacy in public.

The issue of toilets does not apply, because an expectation of privacy in bathrooms is generally reasonable. Though since you've mentioned it, I will point out that I do not use urinals - I find them dirty for one, not suited for performing a proper shirt re-tuck for two, and that whatever my wishes, there is always the possibility of someone getting shifty with their eyes (and the last thing I want to do is make someone feel bad about himself ).

I recognize that as much as I may desire privacy while using the toilet, when I am in a public restroom, that privacy is not automatically guaranteed.

 

[Bronzeage]

The right to privacy is based on a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why public toilet stalls have doors. In most states, women(and men) have an expectation that what is hidden by their skirt will remain hidden. In the great scheme of things, no real harm was done, but prohibiting upskirt videos is just one of those things we do to keep order.

Imagine you are standing at a urinal and realize the person beside you is filming everything.

At issue is whether someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

I find the whole notion oxymoronic: only an unreasonable person would expect privacy in public.

The issue of toilets does not apply, because an expectation of privacy in bathrooms is generally reasonable. Though since you've mentioned it, I will point out that I do not use urinals - I find them dirty for one, not suited for performing a proper shirt re-tuck for two, and that whatever my wishes, there is always the possibility of someone getting shifty with their eyes (and the last thing I want to do is make someone feel bad about himself ).

I recognize that as much as I may desire privacy while using the toilet, when I am in a public restroom, that privacy is not automatically guaranteed.

If you think a woman is not entitled to privacy in public because she is wearing a skirt, you are free to make that argument. It has all the acuity of your fear of contamination from public urinals.

 

[JonA]

At issue is whether someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

I find the whole notion oxymoronic: only an unreasonable person would expect privacy in public.

The issue of toilets does not apply, because an expectation of privacy in bathrooms is generally reasonable. Though since you've mentioned it, I will point out that I do not use urinals - I find them dirty for one, not suited for performing a proper shirt re-tuck for two, and that whatever my wishes, there is always the possibility of someone getting shifty with their eyes (and the last thing I want to do is make someone feel bad about himself ).

I recognize that as much as I may desire privacy while using the toilet, when I am in a public restroom, that privacy is not automatically guaranteed.

If you think a woman is not entitled to privacy in public because she is wearing a skirt, you are free to make that argument. It has all the acuity of your fear of contamination from public urinals.

I notice you didn't bother to address anything I said, instead choosing to just roll out the ad hominem.

 

[laughing dog]

At issue is whether someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Undergarments are worn so as not to be seen in public. I think it reasonable that someone expect that others are not photographing their undergarments without their permission. Apparently, even the GA state legislature agrees, since it plans to change the law in order to make it valid.

 

[JonA]

At issue is whether someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Undergarments are worn so as not to be seen in public. I think it reasonable that someone expect that others are not photographing their undergarments without their permission. Apparently, even the GA state legislature agrees, since it plans to change the law in order to make it valid.

Having one's undergarments visible invalidates the claim that one desires them to remain private.

 

[Arctish]

Undergarments are worn so as not to be seen in public. I think it reasonable that someone expect that others are not photographing their undergarments without their permission. Apparently, even the GA state legislature agrees, since it plans to change the law in order to make it valid.

Having one's undergarments visible invalidates the claim that one desires them to remain private.

So if I use a tiny hidden camera to sneak a peek under your T shirt, I can then say you were flaunting your nipples? Is that how that works?

I know a guy who used to steal stuff and then claim it was the victim's fault the stuff was stolen because, as he used to put it, "you snooze, you lose". I always thought that was an obviously bullshit excuse, but maybe I'm wrong. So I guess if a woman isn't actively defending the space under her clothes to keep a creeper from photographing her undies, she must want him to do it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The right to privacy is based on a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why public toilet stalls have doors. In most states, women(and men) have an expectation that what is hidden by their skirt will remain hidden. In the great scheme of things, no real harm was done, but prohibiting upskirt videos is just one of those things we do to keep order.

Imagine you are standing at a urinal and realize the person beside you is filming everything.

At issue is whether someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

I find the whole notion oxymoronic: only an unreasonable person would expect privacy in public.

I know. It's completely unreasonable for women to expect men NOT to look up their skirts at their underwear.

It's not you smoking crack so it must be them, right?

 

[JonA]

Having one's undergarments visible invalidates the claim that one desires them to remain private.

So if I use a tiny hidden camera to sneak a peek under your T shirt, I can then say you were flaunting your nipples? Is that how that works?

I wear my shirts tucked.

So I guess if a woman isn't actively defending the space under her clothes to keep a creeper from photographing her undies, she must want him to do it.

That I've accepted that I don't have privacy while in public doesn't mean I want it that way.

I don't want people listening to the conversations my partner and I are having while waiting in the checkout line; but I also don't expect that we have any privacy as we stand in public.

And I'm as much wary of what I say in public as I am of how I dress in public.