Ladies... do you think you should have the right to not have a picture taken up your skirt against your will by some pervert who will later use it for his own gratification? Think your child should be protected from it?
Well, too bad, says the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals:
Texas court upholds legality of "upskirt" photos
Criticising an anti-"creepshot" law as a "paternalistic" intrusion on a person's right to be aroused, the Texas court of criminal appeals struck down part of the state's "improper photography or visual recording" statute which banned photographing, broadcasting or transmitting a visual image of another person without the other's consent and with the intention to "arouse or gratify ... sexual desire".
The case stemmed from the arrest of a man in his early 50s named Ronald Thompson who was stopped in 2011 at Sea World in San Antonio after parents reported him swimming with and taking pictures of children aged 3-11. The local district attorney's office said that he tried to delete the photographs before his camera was seized and a police examination of it revealed 73 images of children in swimsuits "with most of the photographs targeting the children's breast and buttocks areas".
That's right. If some creep is taking pictures of your children's buttocks and chests, there's nothing you can do about it. It's his constitutional right!
But it gets worse:
The judges said that photographs were "inherently expressive", like other artistic mediums such as films or books, and so the process of creating them, as well as the images themselves, was part of an American's right to free speech because "thought is intertwined with expression".
Do you see that? Taking pictures of kid's privates is "inherently expressive." It's art!
So if this ruling were to have precedent, would it overturn a host of child pornography convictions? I mean, if taking pictures of kid's privates is an inherent artistic expression, then how can we can convict anyone of doing so? Or trading and viewing them online?
The article notes that a prosecution of taking such upshots failed in Boston earlier this year, but that was because the law wasn't written broadly enough to cover non-nude photographs. Lawmakers reacted swiftly to correct that little oversight. But in this case, the court is saying such a law would be too broad.
Just another case of your nether regions are fair game.