Upskirt Photography, (or a voyeur and his art)

[AthenaAwakened]

Today is a glorious day for a one Christopher Hunt Cleveland, an all-American hero who just wanted to take upskirt photos of women at a national monument without having a bunch of no-fun freedom-haters stand in his way. Though he was arrested in June 2013 and charged with two counts of attempted voyeurism when U.S. Park Police spotted him at the Lincoln Memorial surreptitiously taking pictures of the “private parts” of women seated on the memorial steps, he has been found guilty of, well, nothing.
D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet J. McKenna ruled that the women “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a public place and that they had positioned themselves in ways that made there intimate areas visible to any other passerby,” as The Washington Post reported. Her ruling states that “There is no evidence Mr. Cleveland positioned his camera in any way or employed photographic techniques or illumination, so as to capture images that were not already on public display.” This, even though officers who detained Cleveland found hundreds of “comparable shots from other outings” on a computer stored in Cleveland’s car.
Less than a month ago, a Texas Court issued much the same ruling, striking down a law that would ban upskirt photos on the grounds that it “would be a violation of federal free-speech rights and a ‘paternalistic’ effort to regulate the photographers’ thoughts.”

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/20...-upskirt-ruling-some-fashion-tips-for-ladies/

Expect an upsurge in women channeling the spirit of Joan Crawford and slapping the shit outta people.

 

[Axulus]

Wouldn't these shots be considered pornography? Shouldn't taking pornographic photos without the subject of the photo's consent be illegal regardless if the shots being taken were of unintentional revealings in public? What if he was taking similar pictures of little girls?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ugly, but if it's on public display I don't see that there's grounds to make the photography illegal.

 

[Terrell]

If one wants to take photos up a woman's skirt, one should need her consent to do so. Doing so without her consent, IMO, is a violation of her privacy.

 

[James Brown]

That seems right. If it's not illegal for a woman to cross her legs in a skirt out in public, and if it's not illegal for someone to see a woman cross her legs in a skirt out in public, then why would it be illegal for someone to digitally capture the woman cross her legs in a skirt out in public. It's the same photons--one scenario uses an artificial lens to capture them and the other a natural lens.

 

[Bronzeage]

Last summer, in my neighborhood, a man was arrested at the local water park. He was seen taking surreptitious photos of girls in bathing suits. He seemed to be concentrating on the 11 to 13 year olds. He was arrested for something called video voyeurism, which apparently is a thing in Louisiana. I don't know if he would be in trouble, if he had been brazen about it.

 

[Metaphor]

Wouldn't these shots be considered pornography? Shouldn't taking pornographic photos without the subject of the photo's consent be illegal regardless if the shots being taken were of unintentional revealings in public? What if he was taking similar pictures of little girls?

I don't know what these shots look like, but you do not generally have the right to prevent people from looking at you when you're in a public place. By extension, you also don't have the right to stop people photographing or filming you when you're in a public place (although this might vary in place to place e.g. I know it is not legal to sound record conversations in some U.S. states without all parties consenting).

Are you okay with people's photos being taken without their consent as long as it's not "pornographic"? How are you going to prove a photo is "pornographic"? There's no doubt that pedophiles jerk off to pictures of young children in catalogues and holiday snapshots and who knows what else, and when the pictures were taken there was no pornographic intent at all, they were 'repurposed' (I don't know what else to call it) by the pedophile.

Basically, if you're putting it on display, you cannot reasonably expect people not to see it, and some of those people are also going to photograph it.

Having said that, that doesn't mean the behaviour isn't nasty. And my arguments apply only to public places. They don't apply to private spaces in public places (like the toilet) and they don't apply to non-public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[Metaphor]

If one wants to take photos up a woman's skirt, one should need her consent to do so. Doing so without her consent, IMO, is a violation of her privacy.

Would you need her consent to look up her skirt?

If so, doesn't that mean you need everyone's consent to look at them?

 

[Rhea]

I was ready to be outraged, but on reading the details it looks like he was not bending down and aiming up or anything - the women were simply sitting imprudently on their own and he was able to see from where he was sitting. As distasteful as I find his actions to be, the women who were photographed were doing the same thing as a person in a skimpy suit at the beach. It sounds like it was indeed out there to be seen.

If he had been aiming his camera literally up their skirts I'd be outraged and I also think he'd have lost his defense. But that's not what he was doing, it seems. "Upskirt" seems to be a misnomer, where he was in actuality taking photos "upsteps" at what was in view to anyone sitting on that level.


So, outrage shelved for an actual invasion of actual privacy.

 

[Mumbles]

I'm all for freedom.

But in this case, it seems that there is a very strong question of intent. If he was purposefully taking upskirts of women while they were sitting, that's one matter, and I have no issue with him being charged with a crime. But if he were simply taking photos of ...the steps...at the Lincoln Memorial...


No, wait, there's exactly one memorable step at the Lincoln Memorial. What the hell was I talking about?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you put it on display people are allowed to take pictures. It isnt like he lifted up skirts or pulled down trousers, etc. Nor was this is a washroom or other private area. I dont see anything that should be actionable. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Much ado about nothing.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm all for freedom.

But in this case, it seems that there is a very strong question of intent. If he was purposefully taking upskirts of women while they were sitting, that's one matter, and I have no issue with him being charged with a crime. But if he were simply taking photos of ...the steps...at the Lincoln Memorial...

Why does the intent matter? It's clear that he very definitely intended to capture these upskirt shots, but he did not capture anything that wasn't already on public display.

 

[Mumbles]

I'm all for freedom.

But in this case, it seems that there is a very strong question of intent. If he was purposefully taking upskirts of women while they were sitting, that's one matter, and I have no issue with him being charged with a crime. But if he were simply taking photos of ...the steps...at the Lincoln Memorial...

Why does the intent matter? It's clear that he very definitely intended to capture these upskirt shots, but he did not capture anything that wasn't already on public display.

Intent is the difference between "Negligent manslaughter" and "1st degree murder". The legal system takes it into account, constantly.

 

[J842P]

I think he is asking why intent should matter in this case where guy's intent is a given.

 

[thebeave]

Well, ladies if you want to even the score, feel free to take pictures of our young men who walk around with their pants around the knees and their boxers showing.

 

[TV and credit cards]

If you put it on display people are allowed to take pictures. It isnt like he lifted up skirts or pulled down trousers, etc. Nor was this is a washroom or other private area. I dont see anything that should be actionable. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Much ado about nothing.

Should a female wearing a skirt have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public from the hemline up? Yes, if a judge determines that the female is not intentionally putting it on display. To say otherwise is to say simply wearing a skirt in public relinquishes this right.

 

[Rhea]

If you put it on display people are allowed to take pictures. It isnt like he lifted up skirts or pulled down trousers, etc. Nor was this is a washroom or other private area. I dont see anything that should be actionable. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Much ado about nothing.

Should a female wearing a skirt have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public from the hemline up? Yes, if a judge determines that the female is not intentionally putting it on display. To say otherwise is to say simply wearing a skirt in public relinquishes this right.

I would say yes when the skirt is covering her from the knee up. Or this hip up, miniskirts are fine, too.
But when a person (man or woman) wears a skirt or loose shorts and sits with their knees out wide, you can't all it a crime when someone sees something there.

If I read the news correctly (and I could be wrong, this is just what I think I read), he did not aim his camera "up a skirt" he aimed it at a woman (or several women), who was sitting in a way that anyone sitting where he was could see their junk.

I would be outraged if he was invading their privacy, like the other case on the subways with standing women. But this case appears to be women sitting with their knees apart at a height putting them above other nearby sitters.

I've seen men with loose shorts and no underwear sitting in such a way as their penis is visible. A picture of that would be a pic of something public at that point.

Yes a person should be able to expect privacy within their clothes - for as long as those clothes cover them. Yes a decent person would not take a photo when the shirt gapes or the skirt hikes or the shorts reveal. But I'm okay with it not being a crime to take that pick of what is revealed.

 

[Metaphor]

Why does the intent matter? It's clear that he very definitely intended to capture these upskirt shots, but he did not capture anything that wasn't already on public display.

Intent is the difference between "Negligent manslaughter" and "1st degree murder". The legal system takes it into account, constantly.

There's no question about his intent. He intended to take upskirt shots, almost certainly so he could jack off to them later.

His looking up their skirt isn't an issue (if you sit in public in a way that people can see up your skirt, you can't complain about people looking). And his intent for looking would be to get jollies out of it (that is, the same intent that motivated the photography).

But you can't consider looking a crime. I look at attractive men all the time, and if they have their shirts off I probably look a little longer. And it's certainly the case that no attractive man has the right to say to me 'you are not allowed to look at me, that's a crime'.

And so if he was taking a photo of something that he was allowed to look at, and that was in a public place, and he didn't take advantage of unreasonable freak circumstances (like the buckle on a skirt failing and the skirt dropping down, even though perhaps an element of what he wants is not to look at women's legs/crotches but specifically upskirt), then I don't see why the photo should be illegal but the looking shouldn't be.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Once in a while I will let my hair down and treat a topic with humor and a touch of sarcasm. One of the first slang word I was introduced to when I came to the US was "beaver shot". Specifically the situation described in the OP. A bunch of "beaver shots" this photographer caught on camera. Do I consider it an invasion to privacy? Non. Is it of bad taste to exploit the insouciance of a couple of women who did not consider to which extent their sitting position could be that revealing? Yes.

I have found myself in situations, on the topless beaches of my hometown Cannes, when I so wanted to stand in the face of a typical American tourist, armed with a super zoom camera, drooling over my exposed breasts , hovering around to get the best shot. Truth is that I chose (like all the other topless babes) to expose my breasts. Making them a public display of what is considered oh so private and taboo in the US. I am rather certain that all of us topless babes ended up pictured in photo albums entitled "souvenirs of the beautiful France" or " I love la France" etc....or whichever failed attempt to spell the whole thing in French. Hey... you've got to impress the guys back home.

Anyhow...it appears that Mr Cleveland intended to keep those photos as well as the ones found on his computer as his private collection. Meaning this is not a case of a public exhibit as part of an art expo. What he does with those photos while being in his own very private time might make some us envision a bottle of lotion and a box of Kleenex.

It appears to be his hobby. Of course, we might also wonder about why anyone would be so fascinated with "beaver shots" to the point that they will frequent public areas for the purpose of hunting for those "insouciant" women.

However, it is not a crime. What stopped me from pulling a "Joan Crawford" each time a tourist was hovering around to take his best shot (to include several similar incidences on the nudist beaches I frequent when back on the Riviera) is that I chose to reveal parts of my anatomy publicly. Now if I were to visit an art expo with an exhibit of photos of nude folks and there I recognize my precious myself, that would be a different outcome.

 

[Terrell]

If one wants to take photos up a woman's skirt, one should need her consent to do so. Doing so without her consent, IMO, is a violation of her privacy.

Would you need her consent to look up her skirt?

If so, doesn't that mean you need everyone's consent to look at them?

NM, at the beginning I didn't realize that she was basically showing everything.