Upskirt Photos Don't Violate A Woman's Privacy, Rules D.C. Judge

OhLook wrote in post #17208871
LisaBlue, there are instances of inappropriate touching of females without consent that are charged as child molestation if the female is under 18 and as sexual battery if she's older, at least where I live. So the age of the girl/woman makes a difference in some related laws. The rules can vary by jurisdiction, and case law is constantly changing them.

Touching is a whole different story. Illegal in all states, I would hope. The judge's ruling just baffles me....Maybe it's just me, but I think it's an invasion of privacy & definitely disturbing to say the least...

The article I read on this case stated that he had been taking photos from eye level, and not that he had been taking measures to attempt and bypass any reasonable efforts of privacy.

And I find CyberDyneSystems' suggestion that the opinion that a person is responsible for their appearance and what they expose to pubic view is remotely similar or related to the subject of rape to be offensive.

A person's appearance does not excuse actual illegal actions taken against them, however it is not, nor should it be, illegal to look at someone or something that is visible within a public space. Nor should it be illegal to photograph such.

We have a host of laws covering a wide range of other actions that may take place at the same time as such, including harassment and other far more heinous actions, but as a society we should hold people responsible for their own basic efforts of privacy, and educate people on issues. And we have laws against violating such reasonable expectations of privacy.

However if I wear something that lets my junk hang out, then that is my responsibility, not that of a person who happens to look at me. I would have failed to maintain a reasonable level of privacy if they can look over and see more than I would normally intend with no extra effort on their part. Any issue related to that doesn't become the other person's responsibility until they choose to step outside of the law and begin harassing, assaulting, etc.

The ruling makes sense. He wasn't specifically going out to try and take upskirt photos. It seems that he was taking photos generally, then saw some women wearing revealing clothing sitting on the steps, and decided to take some snaps. He didn't wander closer to them and shoot from the hip, he clearly pointed the camera toward them with his eye to the viewfinder to take the shots. The photos he took were of things that anyone walking by would have seen.

The judge clearly distinguished this case from others where the defendant was doing things like positioning him/herself where it was more likely he/she would be able to see up women's skirts.

Luckless wrote in post #17209085
....

And I find CyberDyneSystems' suggestion that the opinion that a person is responsible for their appearance and what they expose to pubic view is remotely similar or related to the subject of rape to be offensive. ....

Sorry if you took offense.

There were posts ahead of yours that you could not have seen, that were not about photography, not about the law, not about the expectation of privacy, but rather, about whether or not a Woman deserves to be mistreated based on how she dresses. I found the similarity to be compelling.

I agree with you that the ruling was a good one, I will always tend to come down on side of freedoms we photographers have come to expect, and I agree with you 100% about the when and where of the expectation of privacy. And I will continue feel these are good discussions on POTN.

Whether a woman deserves what she got because of what she was wearing? Not so much,... in fact simply, No.
That will not pass muster here.

I just re-read your post that was deleted, and I may have read into it what had been posted so clearly by others. On a second reading it is NOT crossing the same line that got other posts deleted. I can see how I made the mistake of combining them, but taken on it's own, I should not have allowed your reply to be lumped in with the others that were in fact, out of line.