Upskirt Photography, (or a voyeur and his art)

[Bomb#20]

But even a nuanced view does not mean intellectually honest or sophisticated. Australia recently had a kerfuffle over an artist who took nude portraits of children and displaying said art. Nude photos are (or were, at any rate) allowed, as long as their for 'artistic purposes'. To be crude, exactly why 'artistic purposes' gets a free pass but 'jerking off purposes' doesn't, I'm not sure. It might seem obvious to the legislature why one of them should be banned and the other not, but it's not obvious to me, nor is it obvious to me how they're going to tell the difference.

Quite so. If you want me to psychoanalyze Parliament, I imagine the Coalition would have banned both, so this sounds like something Labor did. Presumably artistic purposes get a pass because censoring artists is something Labor MPs associate with reactionaries and they want to think well of themselves. Presumably jerking off purposes don't get a pass because everybody hates pedos.

Do you have an actual argument for why the line should be drawn between taping it and playing the tapes for others?

Well for one thing, the first category is about making a record of something, and the second category is about showing that record to somebody.

So does that mean if I overhear a conversation and write it down, you think I shouldn't be allowed to show anyone the transcript?

Most of us think it's morally permissible to videorecord someone surreptitiously, even if we're looking for evidence against them, e.g. a woman who hires a private detective to follow her husband, or an insurance company looking for evidence of insurance fraud. So if it's morally permissible to record something surreptitiously to look for evidence against someone, it seems to me that it should also be morally permissible to record something when you have motives that are far less likely to harm the person being recorded.

You say that as though the only consideration is harm to the recorded person. The circumstance that the observer is looking for evidence against someone is generally considered a point in her favor. Exposure of wrongdoing is considered a net positive to society; the harm to the wrongdoer is considered either a less weighty factor, from a purely utilitarian viewpoint, or else icing on the cake from a retributive viewpoint. But if you videorecord someone just for titillation, that's perceived as lacking redeeming social value. So that leaves nothing to put on the scale against the preference of the subject not to be videotaped, other than the observer's pleasure and respect for his freedom. Since he's presumably a perv, his sexual pleasure is valued at zero or even negatively. As for freedom, people use that word to refer to three very different things:

1: I get to do what I want.
2: You get to do what I want.
3: You get to do what you want.

Most people don't give a damn about type 3.

(Funny story about that. The California statute explicitly says "electronic". This means if you somehow manage to record a private conversation mechanically onto an old Edison wax cylinder without giving yourself away, it's legal! )

That could be an important distinction. Writing down a conversation is also 'recording' it (it's on the record, so to speak).

Yes, I assume that was the whole point. They can't have been trying to exempt wax cylinders; they must have said "electronic" specifically to make it clear that writing down what you overheard wasn't against the law.

All of these things make a difference and the legislature weighs the differences when it decides where to draw the line.

It does not seem to be that nuanced. Apart from perhaps exposing corruption, I don't think legislatures differentiate different motives and circumstances. They make something forbidden and perhaps outline exceptions.

Of course they differentiate motives and circumstances; you gave an example yourself: "artistic purposes". Sure, they make something forbidden and perhaps outline exceptions, but that's because it's hard for courts to read defendants' minds. They're absolutely taking into account what people's motives and circumstances are likely to be when they decide which things to forbid and which exceptions to outline. If they can't imagine a person with good motives doing X, they forbid it. But if they think of one good motive for doing X, then they try to come up with some observable detail Y that will occur when the X-doer has that motive but not when he has one of the bad motives, and they'll forbid X except when Y.

Arguments of the form "This is okay; therefore that is also okay." aren't valid arguments until you explain why none of the differences between this and that should carry any weight.

It seems to me it's the legislatures who need to be doing the defending: in some places it is okay to videotape someone but not audiotape them.

That's all very well if you want to make like Socrates and James Brown, and merely ask why the crotch shots should be illegal. But when you make the positive claim that they should be legal you're signing up for burden of proof.

This seems to me the exact opposite of what would be legislated if you were concerned about protecting privacy.

I believe I'm often quite witty in what I say, but sometimes my trousers drop and I'm exposing more than I want to and more than the world needs to see. Yet audiotaping me is forbidden but forever capturing an unflattering image is kosher.

Welcome to democracy. Perhaps the general public are more secure than you in their ability to conform to clothing conventions, and less secure about their wittiness.

Or perhaps people feel video is a window onto their bodies and audio is a window into their minds.

 

[Metaphor]

Presumably jerking off purposes don't get a pass because everybody hates pedos.

It'll be co-opted for such purposes no matter what Parliament legislates. There's no doubt in my mind that photographic artists are going to take different kinds of child nudes than a pedo would, but that's just short-hand. It seems to me that what matters is the experience of the child when the photo is taken, rather than the motives of the photographer.

So does that mean if I overhear a conversation and write it down, you think I shouldn't be allowed to show anyone the transcript?

Yes, that thorny issue of the line. I'll put it this way: if it were morally permissible to show someone the transcript in a particular situation, it seems to me it would be morally permissible to play the audio recording. In some ways, the audio recording would be better, at least in terms of accuracy and tone and context.

You say that as though the only consideration is harm to the recorded person. The circumstance that the observer is looking for evidence against someone is generally considered a point in her favor.

Except if no untoward behaviour is discovered (or even if it's somehow ruled out), we don't attack the person who thought it was warranted.

Exposure of wrongdoing is considered a net positive to society; the harm to the wrongdoer is considered either a less weighty factor, from a purely utilitarian viewpoint, or else icing on the cake from a retributive viewpoint. But if you videorecord someone just for titillation, that's perceived as lacking redeeming social value. So that leaves nothing to put on the scale against the preference of the subject not to be videotaped, other than the observer's pleasure and respect for his freedom. Since he's presumably a perv, his sexual pleasure is valued at zero or even negatively. As for freedom, people use that word to refer to three very different things:

1: I get to do what I want.
2: You get to do what I want.
3: You get to do what you want.

Most people don't give a damn about type 3.

I can certainly agree to that.

Yes, I assume that was the whole point. They can't have been trying to exempt wax cylinders; they must have said "electronic" specifically to make it clear that writing down what you overheard wasn't against the law.

I'm sure justices would handwave the distinction away, but 'electronic' is more specific than 'electric'; I don't consider audiotape an electronic medium, though it's electric (ie powered by electricity), whereas recording on a phone or digital recorder would be 'electronic'.

Of course they differentiate motives and circumstances; you gave an example yourself: "artistic purposes".

I'm sure glad the lower house knows how to define art. All those philosophers of aesthetics need to do is read some legislation then retire!

Welcome to democracy. Perhaps the general public are more secure than you in their ability to conform to clothing conventions, and less secure about their wittiness.

Well I can understand that, when I hear what actually comes out of the mouths of some real live people.

Or perhaps people feel video is a window onto their bodies and audio is a window into their minds.

That's quite a neat little epigram. Do you mind if I take a photo of it?

 

[Bomb#20]

Or perhaps people feel video is a window onto their bodies and audio is a window into their minds.

That's quite a neat little epigram. Do you mind if I take a photo of it?

From what angle?

 

[arkirk]

That's quite a neat little epigram. Do you mind if I take a photo of it?

From what angle?

So here we are. The argument comes down to conformity in dress, with Bomb talking about the zero value of the preferences of "pervs." Do we miss the point that harmless activities are being portrayed as starchamber crimes? I pointed out earlier that to hunger for pictures of underpants and perhaps naked genitals was perhaps only a crime in a figurative sense. We are so quick to define behavior as heinous when it really is just peculiar. I believe several references have already occurred in this thread where it was asserted: If a person does this behavior because he is excited by this type of picture and masturbates to it, it automatically becomes worse. To my recollection there are no laws against masturbation in private or even in private organized groups.

I feel if the person taking the picture defeats through guile and maneuver a person's efforts to remain private then he/she has committed an offense against their privacy and that definitely is a violation of a person's right to defend said privacy. If, however a person engages in lewd public exposure and is photographed doing so, that is fair game.

It is not up to us to define a person's private and separate motivation or sexual orientation and to give it either lesser or greater value than his/her actual public act. If a guy photographed a flasher and took the pic home and jacked off or took it to the police station to enforce a complaint should not matter. Each of these people regard what they are doing as having primacy in their considerations. For us to hold forth on moral values of questionable value makes no sense and are nothing but a statement of their preferences for human behavior...and not some cosmically true or licensed idea.

 

[RavenSky]

I feel if the person taking the picture defeats through guile and maneuver a person's efforts to remain private then he/she has committed an offense against their privacy and that definitely is a violation of a person's right to defend said privacy. If, however a person engages in lewd public exposure and is photographed doing so, that is fair game.

I agree, but the question is where to draw the line. The man in the kilt pictured in this thread was not engaging in lewd public exposure. It appears to me to have been an accidental exposure brought on, in part, by the angle of the camera. Is accidental exposure fair game for publication? Does it matter if the photographer positions himself in such a way as to engineer such "accidental" exposures?

And what of the man in Texas? He wasn't photography "lewd public exposure" or even accidental exposure. He was photographing the butts and chests of pre-pubescent children in their swimsuits at a public pool.

What I find interesting about all of the cases I'm aware of, including the one in Massachusetts (nod to Mumbles) is that the courts were in full agreement that the behaviors of the photographers was invasive and wrong, but ruled that the governing laws we're inadequate to address the behavior. Massachusetts corrected that oversight in all of a day.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note that what he's taking pictures of is *NOT* on display, that is *NOT* what we are talking about. I agree that such photography should be illegal.

It's "on display" from the angles these men are taking the photos - same as the DC creep or the Texas perv

But that's not an angle where people can reasonably be viewing from. He can't actually see up her skirt, he has to use the camera to get the view.

 

[RavenSky]

It's "on display" from the angles these men are taking the photos - same as the DC creep or the Texas perv

But that's not an angle where people can reasonably be viewing from. He can't actually see up her skirt, he has to use the camera to get the view.

So, in your opinion, it is perfectly fine to take photos of the man in his kilt and post said photos for the world to see as long as the photographer just happens to be stretched out of a blanket in the grass, and can therefore see the man's penis under the kilt? But it would not be ok if the photographer were standing up and therefore would not be able to see under the kilt?

 

[credoconsolans]

A man fell asleep on the beach.

During his sleep, he got a woody.

Someone took a picture of said magnificent woody.

Is it right, or even ethical, to put his picture - without his permission - up in a public place as 'art'?

All the excuses being made for this 'artistic' pervert can be used here.

"Hey he was putting it out there"
"Hey he can't be given privacy out in public"

Perhaps privacy isn't the issue as much as it is permission.

This 'artist' didn't ask for permission because he knew what answer he'd get.

He disregarded any attempt to get input from his subjects, because this was all for his own benefit because without them, he'd have nothing.

 

[J842P]

A man fell asleep on the beach.

During his sleep, he got a woody.

Someone took a picture of said magnificent woody.

Is it right, or even ethical, to put his picture - without his permission - up in a public place as 'art'?

All the excuses being made for this 'artistic' pervert can be used here.

"Hey he was putting it out there"
"Hey he can't be given privacy out in public"

Perhaps privacy isn't the issue as much as it is permission.

This 'artist' didn't ask for permission because he knew what answer he'd get.

He disregarded any attempt to get input from his subjects, because this was all for his own benefit because without them, he'd have nothing.

I would consider the situation you described as discourteous but I don't think it should be criminal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that's not an angle where people can reasonably be viewing from. He can't actually see up her skirt, he has to use the camera to get the view.

So, in your opinion, it is perfectly fine to take photos of the man in his kilt and post said photos for the world to see as long as the photographer just happens to be stretched out of a blanket in the grass, and can therefore see the man's penis under the kilt? But it would not be ok if the photographer were standing up and therefore would not be able to see under the kilt?

If it's a place that he might reasonably be lying down then it shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A man fell asleep on the beach.

During his sleep, he got a woody.

Someone took a picture of said magnificent woody.

Is it right, or even ethical, to put his picture - without his permission - up in a public place as 'art'?

All the excuses being made for this 'artistic' pervert can be used here.

"Hey he was putting it out there"
"Hey he can't be given privacy out in public"

Perhaps privacy isn't the issue as much as it is permission.

This 'artist' didn't ask for permission because he knew what answer he'd get.

He disregarded any attempt to get input from his subjects, because this was all for his own benefit because without them, he'd have nothing.

I would consider the situation you described as discourteous but I don't think it should be criminal.

Agreed. It doesn't rise to the level of criminality in my book.

 

[RavenSky]

So, in your opinion, it is perfectly fine to take photos of the man in his kilt and post said photos for the world to see as long as the photographer just happens to be stretched out of a blanket in the grass, and can therefore see the man's penis under the kilt? But it would not be ok if the photographer were standing up and therefore would not be able to see under the kilt?

If it's a place that he might reasonably be lying down then it shouldn't be illegal.

So you do agree that it is perfectly acceptable for the perv to purposely position himself in such a way as to take "upskirt" shots, and that it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim engaging "in lewd public exposure"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it's a place that he might reasonably be lying down then it shouldn't be illegal.

So you do agree that it is perfectly acceptable for the perv to purposely position himself in such a way as to take "upskirt" shots, and that it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim engaging "in lewd public exposure"

What you don't seem to get is that some of us see a range between "perfectly acceptable" and "criminal". None of us are saying it's good behavior, some of us are saying we don't consider it to rise to the level of criminal behavior.

 

[RavenSky]

So you do agree that it is perfectly acceptable for the perv to purposely position himself in such a way as to take "upskirt" shots, and that it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim engaging "in lewd public exposure"

What you don't seem to get is that some of us see a range between "perfectly acceptable" and "criminal". None of us are saying it's good behavior, some of us are saying we don't consider it to rise to the level of criminal behavior.

So you do agree that it should be perfectly legal for the perv to purposely position himself in such a way as to take "upskirt" shots, and that it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim engaging "in lewd public exposure"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you don't seem to get is that some of us see a range between "perfectly acceptable" and "criminal". None of us are saying it's good behavior, some of us are saying we don't consider it to rise to the level of criminal behavior.

So you do agree that it should be perfectly legal for the perv to purposely position himself in such a way as to take "upskirt" shots, and that it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim engaging "in lewd public exposure"

If it's a reasonable position for him to be in given the situation.

I don't believe there is any obligation to not look at what's being shown and I also think that in the absence of an expectation of privacy you should be allowed to record what you can see/hear.

It's polite to not look at what's shown by accident but that's not the same thing as saying it's criminal to look, even if that looking is done with a camera.

 

[RavenSky]

So you do agree that it should be perfectly legal for the perv to purposely position himself in such a way as to take "upskirt" shots, and that it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim engaging "in lewd public exposure"

If it's a reasonable position for him to be in given the situation.

I don't believe there is any obligation to not look at what's being shown and I also think that in the absence of an expectation of privacy you should be allowed to record what you can see/hear.

It's polite to not look at what's shown by accident but that's not the same thing as saying it's criminal to look, even if that looking is done with a camera.

And this is where we will have to disagree. I think people have an expectation of privacy for what is actually under their clothing, and an unfortunate angle or gust of wind should not change that expectation. It may be inevitable that a few bystanders may inadvertently see, or even record, the accidental exposure but it should be illegal to then publish that exposure without written consent from the subject. It should also be illegal to be placing one's self into a position to specifically invade other people's personal privacy to photograph their genitals, butts, breasts. I so no difference whatsoever between the men in the photos I posted, vs the man who purposely positions himself on the ground or under the stairs to take the photos.

And I disagree that "looking" is the same thing as taking a photo with a camera.