TEXAS LAW AGAINST IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

http://abc13.com …mproper-photo-ban/313037/

By an 8-1 vote Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision of an intermediate state appeals court, ruling that the state ban on "improper photography" is too broad and violated First Amendment free-speech rights.

The court majority found that anyone who appears in public surrenders protection from being the object of sexual fantasies. However, the 38-page ruling written by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller and filed Wednesday does not invalidate the state ban on secret photography of people in bathrooms or private dressing rooms, where a person is presumed to have privacy.

The constitutionality of the Texas Improper Photography Statute was first brought to the courts in July of 2011, when 50-year-old Ronald Thompson was arrested at Sea World of Texas for taking inappropriate photos of children ages 3 to 11 in their swimsuits.

(More info at the URL)

If you're willing to be seen in public in it, you should be willing to be seen in a picture with it.

vengence wrote in post #17165657
If you're willing to be seen in public in it, you should be willing to be seen in a picture with it.

right, but apparently this vague law also protected "up-skirt" photographers !

watt100 wrote in post #17165744
right, but apparently this vague law also protected "up-skirt" photographers !

Sounds like a perfect case of "if you can't clearly define what you're trying to outlaw, you probably shouldn't be trying to outlaw it"...

Just because my kids are in public in a swimsuit doesn't mean it's OK to take photos of them to ME.

Why would he do that?

This decision sounds like "rewrite the badly worded bill and try it again" more than an outright defeat. I'm sure that we will see a new law come around that isn't as board as this one was.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17165930
Just because my kids are in public in a swimsuit doesn't mean it's OK to take photos of them to ME.

Someone at the beach who happens to see your kids in swimsuits may get a quick glimpse of them or may look at them for a minute or longer. Presumably you don't object, or you wouldn't take the kids to the beach in swimsuits. A photo will preserve this brief sight, make it permanent. Why is one kind of viewing okay and the other kind not? I'm trying to get at the reason(s) for this difference that the law doesn't recognize.

OhLook wrote in post #17166038
Someone at the beach who happens to see your kids in swimsuits may get a quick glimpse of them or may look at them for a minute or longer. Presumably you don't object, or you wouldn't take the kids to the beach in swimsuits. A photo will preserve this brief sight, make it permanent. Why is one kind of viewing okay and the other kind not? I'm trying to get at the reason(s) for this difference that the law doesn't recognize.

I don't think you should take pics of other people's kids on purpose. But if they are in swimsuits I have a hard time thinking there isn't a more sinister reason behind it.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17166043
I don't think you should take pics of other people's kids on purpose.

I took this one the other day, in front of a produce market, because the child was so extraordinarily beautiful. There's nothing sexual in it for me. I don't believe I was doing something wrong, but I snapped quickly because I know that some parents feel as you do.

IMAGE LINK: http://s641.photobucke​t.com …1614_zps1473e21​f.jpg.html

I think there wouldn't be a sinister reason most of the time. Kids running on the beach or making a sand castle could be a good artistic photo. Now, men who go to the beach and surreptitiously photograph women in bikinis--that's something else again.

rick_reno wrote in post #17162850
http://abc13.com …mproper-photo-ban/313037/

By an 8-1 vote Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision of an intermediate state appeals court, ruling that the state ban on "improper photography" is too broad and violated First Amendment free-speech rights.

The court majority found that anyone who appears in public surrenders protection from being the object of sexual fantasies. However, the 38-page ruling written by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller and filed Wednesday does not invalidate the state ban on secret photography of people in bathrooms or private dressing rooms, where a person is presumed to have privacy.

The constitutionality of the Texas Improper Photography Statute was first brought to the courts in July of 2011, when 50-year-old Ronald Thompson was arrested at Sea World of Texas for taking inappropriate photos of children ages 3 to 11 in their swimsuits.

(More info at the URL)

This is in line with the rest of the country's interpretation of laws that prevent certain audio, video, and still photography media recording in public places. And it's exception for media recording in private places is also in line with the rest of the US. Glad the court didn't go too far in restricting what people can do with their equipment.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17166043
I don't think you should take pics of other people's kids on purpose. But if they are in swimsuits I have a hard time thinking there isn't a more sinister reason behind it.

I take pictures of cute kids all the time when I'm out doing gurilla-style photography and videography. Nothing sinister behind it at all to be honest with you. How cute is it when you're at a zoo and you grab a shot of the excitement on a kid's face when he's looking at a Orangutan eating a fruit in a tree? Or a couple of siblings laughing and playing tag on a beach in their swimsuits? I have taken real shots of both of those things.

It's a bit of a stereotype to imagine that anyone who is photographing cute kids playing in public is being sinister. Maybe this guy was creeping around, who knows. But I know it's a stereotype to categorize everyone who does it in the sinister thought category.

Anytime the justification for a law is "think of the children!" you know it's gonna be a bad law.

That said, Ronald Thompson sounds like a perv and ought to get the snot beaten out of him.

OhLook wrote in post #17166068
I took this one the other day, in front of a produce market, because the child was so extraordinarily beautiful. There's nothing sexual in it for me. I don't believe I was doing something wrong, but I snapped quickly because I know that some parents feel as you do.

http:// …

I think there wouldn't be a sinister reason most of the time. Kids running on the beach or making a sand castle could be a good artistic photo. Now, men who go to the beach and surreptitiously photograph women in bikinis--that's something else again.

photos with kids running on the beach that would be ok if no faces are recognizable

Last week we had beautiful warm weather. I came across a scene of a square with a working fountain, people outside on terraces and benches enjoying the warm day. Children in their bathing suits were playing in the fountain. I stopped and took lots of pics of them.

Are you telling me a photographer shouldn't take pics like these? I stumbled upon the scene and shot away, in plain sight, with a 28mm lens, up close, with the parents watching and smiling and the kids loving it that I took pictures of them.

The shots aren't very good, if alone because I had the wrong lens with me (an old MF lens) so I only shared one or two here in a thread, but I see nothing at all wrong with pics like these, nor did the people in the square (the parents included).

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17176538
Last week we had beautiful warm weather. I came across a scene of a square with a working fountain, people outside on terraces and benches enjoying the warm day. Children in their bathing suits were playing in the fountain. I stopped and took lots of pics of them.

Are you telling me a photographer shouldn't take pics like these? I stumbled upon the scene and shot away, in plain sight, with a 28mm lens, up close, with the parents watching and smiling and the kids loving it that I took pictures of them.

The shots aren't very good, if alone because I had the wrong lens with me (an old MF lens) so I only shared one or two here in a thread, but I see nothing at all wrong with pics like these, nor did the people in the square (the parents included).

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

This one was at the request of the kids themselves:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I really think people in the US should lighten up a bit. Not everybody who takes pictures of children, including children in bathing suits, are perverts with dirty minds.

This is the problem. There is lot of fear propaganda here.
I took my camera to the part with the 100L, to try out some macro photos. Some lady came out of nowhere questioning what I was taking pics of.

No problems if you are in park with your own kids though.