Colibri

Voyeurism issue - Upskirt law

19 posts in this topic

Reminds me of someone saying on here about a chap who frequented the races and had the polis interview him. I believe it was something do with taking photos albeit with upskirt shots....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5846399/Upskirting-perverts-face-two-years-jail-new-law.html

It all goes back to the moral and right/wrong issue of be discrete, look but dont ever take photos..lest you know the lass and she agrees to photos.

Laughingly or not first cases in papers with the era of digital cameras was as far back as 2 decades ago IIRC....a headmaster had extra large shoes with camera in them. He used to discretely or not take photos...he only got caught when member of public saw him placed his feet under some lasses skirt and then tugged (no pun intended) inside his pockets thus activating the camera.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In common law, 

If the persons any indicative speciality is not exposed (face, tatoos, etc), there is no need to have a consent to take a picture.

I dont know American law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to think that a real man wouldn't do that. It is distasteful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2018 at 6:04 PM, smyrnamonty said:

In common law, 

If the persons any indicative speciality is not exposed (face, tatoos, etc), there is no need to have a consent to take a picture.

I dont know American law.

You shouldn't need the letter of existing law to know that sticking a camera up a woman's dress without her consent for your private sexual gratification is something you don't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does raise an interesting dichotomy.  If a female TV presenter crosses her legs on TV, and someone then captures an up skirt shot from the TV, and then posts it in this forum, does that break this law?  The presenter hasn't given their permission for the shot to be taken, let alone for it to be posted. 

Edited by Bigun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bigun said:

It does raise an interesting dichotomy.  If a female TV presenter crosses her legs on TV, and someone then captures an up skirt shot from the TV, and then posts it in this forum, does that break this law?  The presenter hasn't given their permission for the shot to be taken, let alone for it to be posted. 

Maybe not, but it tells you all you need to know about that person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bigun said:

It does raise an interesting dichotomy.  If a female TV presenter crosses her legs on TV, and someone then captures an up skirt shot from the TV, and then posts it in this forum, does that break this law?  The presenter hasn't given their permission for the shot to be taken, let alone for it to be posted. 

An absurd comparison.  The female TV presenter knows there is a camera filming her and if she doesn't want anyone to capture an up skirt shot, then she should wear an  appropriate length skirt or be careful when crossing her legs. A female, who is a victim of some deviant using a mobile phone camera to take a picture under her skirt hasn't given the deviant permission to go under her skirt. We all know lawmakers often don't keep up with technology, but one would think there are existing laws in civilised countries to punish perpetrators of such depraved acts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Augustus said:

An absurd comparison.  The female TV presenter knows there is a camera filming her and if she doesn't want anyone to capture an up skirt shot, then she should wear an  appropriate length skirt or be careful when crossing her legs. A female, who is a victim of some deviant using a mobile phone camera to take a picture under her skirt hasn't given the deviant permission to go under her skirt. We all know lawmakers often don't keep up with technology, but one would think there are existing laws in civilised countries to punish perpetrators of such depraved acts. 

I have to agree with this point.  There is I believe evidence that people have been prosecuted over upskirt shots, whether the person has placed a phone camera up a skirt or whether the shot was taken with the help of a breeze.    So not sure, what difference the new legislation will make in the long run.  

I also wonder if the law will apply to those photographers at events that ask ladies to lift their skirts?  Admittedly, it is the ladies choice to lift her skirt to show their lingerie, but would these be counted as upskirt shots if seen without knowing that the lady gave her permission.  

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should if the breeze blows the skirt up while the picture is being taken, it should be ok, as is a lady twirling around while dancing being fully aware that she is showing all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point is consent. If someone is asked and says yes, that's consent. Someone furtively shooting up a skirt is the exact opposite. The reason this law was proposed is precisely because the existing law doesn't cover upskirting as a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is there are deviants who film up skirt on stiars and trains for example without the lady knowing. If someone wants to see up my skirt I will choose if I show them or not not by a modern day peeping Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Speshell Legs said:

The difference is there are deviants who film up skirt on stiars and trains for example without the lady knowing. If someone wants to see up my skirt I will choose if I show them or not not by a modern day peeping Tom

So the motto of the story is - ask and you might get :58674be0c2f40_EmojiSmiley-06: :58674bdf747cb_EmojiSmiley-04: :58674be18a3d6_EmojiSmiley-07:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, stockingsadmirer68 said:

So the motto of the story is - ask and you might get :58674be0c2f40_EmojiSmiley-06: :58674bdf747cb_EmojiSmiley-04: :58674be18a3d6_EmojiSmiley-07:

Motto is. Respect people. Not meat for perverse pleasure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not be a crime, of course, as it does not hurt anyone.  Filming beauty in public places is not a crime even when the beauty is covered by skirt or dress. Most of public places and transport are equipped with surveillance systems 24/7 and it written everywhere. Any person knows he/she will be filmed. 

In some countries usage of hidden cameras qualified as crime and there is the reason behind this.  So if you are filming with hidden (in shoes) device - it is the crime and does not matter what are you filming. 

It can be a crime if the records are published. 

But shooting ladies аrom underneath is similar to what babies could see when they riase eyes. I am more concerned about that baby could see bare bottom or pussy, so we must think more about this rather than about ladies beauty securiry  :58674be0c2f40_EmojiSmiley-06:

9c6d18cc2113c2fd647e479f71ea24b2_i-321[1].jpg

 

Edited by Russianhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russianhunter, do you even know the meaning of the word 'consent'? You've got a truly screwed up view about this. A baby came out of its mother's vagina, it drank from her nipples, and you think it seeing these things will somehow damage it? It's the neurotic sexual culture of our society which gives rise to the voyeuristic impulses expressed in upskirting. It is a crime, it's an invasion of privacy. The thrill that people get from upskirting is precisely about robbing women of choice. It's a sport for inadequate, ugly-minded men who are afraid of  the opposite sex. 

Edited by FCRM (CD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCRM, I am just wondering, if the French law that bans face covers is also robbing women (and also men) of their choice? 

Anyway ladies are still free to choose what to wear or not to wear, so it is not robbing of choice ))

Be realistic - in the XXI century if person wear dress that technically allows something to be seen - yes, it is the conscious consent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/08/2018 at 10:21 AM, Russianhunter said:

FCRM, I am just wondering, if the French law that bans face covers is also robbing women (and also men) of their choice? 

Anyway ladies are still free to choose what to wear or not to wear, so it is not robbing of choice ))

Be realistic - in the XXI century if person wear dress that technically allows something to be seen - yes, it is the conscious consent. 

If this is a serious comment, the poster is seriously screwed.

I suspect it’s just a bit of trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ECCouple said:

If this is a serious comment, the poster is seriously screwed.

I suspect it’s just a bit of trolling.

I concur, that's why I'm ignoring them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now