Target Sports

Air Marshal arrested

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cbigclarke

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 24, 2009
    21,007
    96
    cypress
    ....Not enough of them, that's for sure.

    careful what you wish for

    th?id=H.4795160371465247&w=256&h=164&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.jpg
    th?id=H.5045801732409231&w=150&h=150&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.jpg
    th?id=H.4852584055702821&w=259&h=182&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.jpg
    th?id=H.4817902193280689&w=115&h=175&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.jpg
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,932
    96
    Spring
    Legislation surrounding the legality of upskirt photos and videos is vague at best ... I wonder what charges will be made?

    That's disturbing
    What's disturbing? The fact that the laws on these things tend to be vague or the fact that such laws exist at all?

    Seriously, the Texas statute on improper photography is worded so poorly that it could be horrifically misused. I'd rather have upskirting be legal than have the crap that passes for "protection" under current Texas law.

    Skippable rant and excess detail for the OCD among us follows.

    Title 5, Section 21 makes "Improper Photography" a sexual offense. Edited for brevity, clarity, and applicability to this context, the text is:

    Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING.
    (a) ...
    (b) A person commits an offense if the person:
    (1) photographs ... at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
    (A) without the other person's consent; and
    (B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
    (2) photographs ... at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room:
    (A) without the other person's consent; and
    (B) with intent to:
    (i) invade ... privacy ...; or
    (ii) arouse or gratify ... sexual desire ...; ...
    (3) ...
    (c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
    ...

    Now, what that means in absolute terms is that if you take a picture that you or someone you're going to pass it along to will find arousing then you've committed a crime. WTF? There are people out there who get aroused by, well, just about any thing you can imagine.

    Applied strictly, this statute outlaws street photography. Henri Cartier-Bresson, my idol, would have been hauled off to jail. Why? Well, he took pictures on the street of people who didn't know they were being photographed. Some of them were beautiful women. He sold those photographs. I'm sure at least one buyer found the photos arousing. I'm sure Cartier-Bresson recognized that possibility. (Very sure, actually. He was known to talk young couples into allowing him to photograph them during coitus.)

    Under the Texas statute, one of the greatest artists of the last century was a criminal.

    Now, I certainly understand that a creepy old man with a good camera and a long lens taking pictures of tweenagers at the mall or the waterpark is viscerally repellant but it's highly dubious that making such conduct illegal is a good idea. It's pretty darn sure that using the language above to make such actions illegal is a bad idea...which is why at this time the Fourth Court of Appeals has held that the statute is unconstitutional. As the statute wends its way through the system, I keep hoping it dies the ignominious death it deserves.

    Then maybe the Legislature can re-tackle the whole "upskirting" issue with narrow language that doesn't simply outlaw taking a picture of what's visible with the naked eye in public places...which was pretty dadgum stupid in the first place.
     
    Last edited:

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,606
    96
    hill co.
    I remember seeing something on the news as to the legality of it(Beyond state laws).

    From what I gathered and unless thing have changed, what you wear in public is considered public. Basically saying if you wear a short skirt and no panties and someone snaps a shot of your cooter on the escalator it is legal because you were basically displaying it.

    In a sense, it puts the responsibility on each person to dress themselves in a way that does not allow the display of anything they don't want seen in any given situation.

    I can see some merit in that as I usually have the mindset of "if you don't want "A" to happen, don't do "B"".

    But then it can get complicated, a woman wearing an ankle length dress could still have same ass stick a small camera in the toe of his shoe so he can get his little picture which is going beyond taking advantage of someone being careless with their clothing choice. Also, that logic can't be applied to a woman who wears skimpy clothing and gets raped.



    Not sure if this post had a point.
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,108
    Messages
    2,952,935
    Members
    34,935
    Latest member
    LandenR
    Top Bottom