They'll never take our freedom!

[Serpico1103]

Ok, maybe they will.

Man arrested for videotaping police officer during his arrest. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076)

Teenager charged for taking pictures of fully clothed classmates. (http://laketravisview.com/2010/02/06/student-charged-for-improper-photos/)

Texas Law
§21.15 – Improper Photography or Visual Recording

A person commits an offense if the person either:
1. Photographs or by other means visually records another
a. Without the other person's consent, AND
b. With intent to arouse to gratify the sexual desire of any person

Not an obscene picture, doesn't apply only to pictures of kids.

And Jezo worries about some elaborate Illuminati plot.

[PapaBear]

A person commits an offense if the person either:
1. Photographs or by other means visually records another
a. Without the other person's consent
Wouldn't this law make it illegal for news photographers/videographers to work without getting consent first? That's fucking crazy! Though, I'm sure it will make fat people happy to know that, they won't be used in stock footage of "neck down" video in news stories about obesity.

[Serpico1103]

Wouldn't this law make it illegal for news photographers/videographers to work without getting consent first? That's fucking crazy! Though, I'm sure it will make fat people happy to know that, they won't be used in stock footage of "neck down" video in news stories about obesity.

Without consent and for someone's, anyone's, sexual gratification.

[hanso]

Without consent and for someone's, anyone's, sexual gratification.

The same thing happened in Florida. With the police being filmed. But it got overturned in court. Maybe the same thing was pointed out. (see quote above)

[PapaBear]

Without consent and for someone's, anyone's, sexual gratification.
Either your original quote is wrong, or the law is poorly written.

A person commits an offense if the person either:
1. Photographs or by other means visually records another
a. Without the other person's consent, AND
b. With intent to arouse to gratify the sexual desire of any person

[hanso]

Either + or + and = Law is poorly written. In my book.

[Serpico1103]

Either your original quote is wrong, or the law is poorly written.

There were other parts to the law that I omitted, related to taking pictures of people in bathrooms and dressing rooms. The "either" referred to that, sorry for the confusion.

[keithy_19]

Bullshit law.

In this case anyway.

[Serpico1103]

Bullshit law.

In this case anyway.

Some states are taking away our rights to video and photograph in public. Using the wiretap law, in maryland, against people videotaping their own arrest is an unbelievable abuse of power.
Conversely, some states have ruled that up skirt pictures are legal, as the women are in public with no expectation of privacy.
Courts are having a hard time dealing with everyone having high quality cameras.

[brettmojo]

It's hard to take away something you already have.

[Serpico1103]

It's hard to take away something you already have.

So, it is easy to take something from someone who doesn't have it?

Unless you meant, "it is hard to take away something you already have given away."

[StanUpshaw]

If she didn't want to get photographed, she would have covered her clothing in infrared LEDs. She was asking for it.

[brettmojo]

So, it is easy to take something from someone who doesn't have it?

Unless you meant, "it is hard to take away something you already have given away."
I should have said "they" instead of "you".

[Chigworthy]

There were other parts to the law that I omitted, related to taking pictures of people in bathrooms and dressing rooms. The "either" referred to that, sorry for the confusion.

I'll post the whole code for you:

(a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another 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 or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another 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 the privacy of the other person; or

(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or

(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.


So the part you posted is pretty much:

A person commits an offense if the person photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room without the other person's consent; and with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

I don't think it's quite the travesty of human rights that you've painted it to be.

[StanUpshaw]

I don't think it's quite the travesty of human rights that you've painted it to be.

Yeah dude, it's just a thought crime, nothing to get worked up about.

[Chigworthy]

Yeah dude, it's just a thought crime, nothing to get worked up about.

What's a thought crime, maaaaaan?

[StanUpshaw]

What's a thought crime, maaaaaan?

http://imgur.com/o0glE.jpg
"Oh, what cute shoes, I think I'll buy a pair."
LEGAL

http://imgur.com/o0glE.jpg
"Oh, what cute shoes, I want to cum on them."
ILLEGAL

Therefore, it is a thought crime.

[Chigworthy]

http://imgur.com/o0glE.jpg
"Oh, what cute shoes, I think I'll buy a pair."
LEGAL

http://imgur.com/o0glE.jpg
"Oh, what cute shoes, I want to cum on them."
ILLEGAL

Therefore, it is a thought crime.

You've convinced me. We had such a good thing going in this country until some joker came up with the newfangled idea of mens rea.

[Serpico1103]

A person commits an offense if the person photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room without the other person's consent; and with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

I don't think it's quite the travesty of human rights that you've painted it to be.

Intent to arouse?
Really, you don't that is too subjective to codify?

The rest of the code I had no problem with, because it dealt with surreptitiously taking pictures of people in dressing rooms and bathrooms. That should be illegal as those are private places, where people have an expectation of privacy. The section I quoted related to all public places.

I also then found it odd, that some courts have ruled upskirt pictures are legal because the women are in public. I understand their logic, but don't like the rulings.

[Chigworthy]

Intent, without the lawful admission of the accused, is always the hardest part of proving someone committed a crime. The law, to me, is sound. It's what the courts do with it that should be critically examined.

[StanUpshaw]

But in this case, intent is the ONLY thing that's in question. It's not illegal to take a picture of a chick on the street. It's only illegal if you get a boner. Show me a law that the idea of mens rea is in any way comparable to what's going on here.

[Chigworthy]

But in this case, intent is the ONLY thing that's in question. It's not illegal to take a picture of a chick on the street. It's only illegal if you get a boner. Show me a law that the idea of mens rea is in any way comparable to what's going on here.

So you really think that if you go to a used car lot, that reasonably appears like a normal car lot, and buy a car, that unbeknownst to you was stolen, and drive that car off of the lot after paying for it, that you will be charged with auto theft?

[StanUpshaw]

So you really think that if you go to a used car lot, that reasonably appears like a normal car lot, and buy a car, that unbeknownst to you was stolen, and drive that car off of the lot after paying for it, that you will be charged with auto theft?

This would only be valid comparison if, once they determined your intentions were pure, they wiped the slate clean and you got to keep the car while the victim was left carless.

In the photography example, the subject can be legally photographed, the image can float around in cyberspace without any knowledge or consent. It could wind up in a billion inboxes and there wouldn't be a thing the subject could do about it. All the same "damage" will be done. The car will still be stolen.

Now how is your example the same?

[Chigworthy]

This would only be valid comparison if, once they determined your intentions were pure, they wiped the slate clean and you got to keep the car while the victim was left carless.

In the photography example, the subject can be legally photographed, the image can float around in cyberspace without any knowledge or consent. It could wind up in a billion inboxes and there wouldn't be a thing the subject could do about it. All the same "damage" will be done. The car will still be stolen.

Now how is your example the same?

So, where the evidence and/or fruits of the crime end(s) up is a determining factor? I can't understand how that has any bearing on your assertion that there are no other crimes where intent is the only determining factor, of which there are plenty. In your example, the fact that the photos end up in a billion inboxes is not covered by the law in question. That may, or may be not, addressed by other laws. There is not a single mention of distribution in the law we are discussing; the criminal act described is the actual taking of the photo with prurient intent.

And as far as the damage being done, do you think that the resolution of criminal actions is the alleviation or eradication of damage? Many criminal acts involve damage that cannot be undone. This is an obvious concept.

[StanUpshaw]

So, where the evidence and/or fruits of the crime end(s) up is a determining factor?
In this case, it's the only reasonable complaint that the victim could have. I can only imagine the law was conceived to respect the right to privacy. If that's not it, then simply the act -the thought- of unauthorized lust would also have to be illegal.

other crimes where intent is the only determining factor, of which there are plenty.
I'm still waiting for you to show me those.

There is not a single mention of distribution in the law we are discussing
"photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image"

the criminal act described is the actual taking of the photo with prurient intent
Like I said, thought crime.


And as far as the damage being done, do you think that the resolution of criminal actions is the alleviation or eradication of damage? Many criminal acts involve damage that cannot be undone. This is an obvious concept.
What I'm saying is that in the vast majority of laws (the exceptions are likely unjust as well), the damage is what determines that a crime or infraction has taken place. In this case, the damages (if you construe a sort of violation of privacy to be a damage) are NOT considered at all. The only thing that matters is if you have lust in your heart. It's insane.

[Chigworthy]

In this case, it's the only reasonable complaint that the victim could have. I can only imagine the law was conceived to respect the right to privacy. If that's not it, then simply the act -the thought- of unauthorized lust would also have to be illegal.
No, the law clearly describes (a)[actus reus] the act of photographing someone without their consent, coupled with (b)[mens rea] the intent of satisfying prurient interests. Guilty Act + Intent = Criminal Act. The act is made guilty by the intent. This is a basic concept of criminal law in our country, and many other cultures for many years.


I'm still waiting for you to show me those.
I explained one, which you responded to with a convoluted statement about where the evidence/fruits of the crime end up, which had little bearing on the fact that what I described which was not a crime if intent could not be demonstrated. There are many more, but extrapolating would be like posting the ABC's and arguing about why they are in that order.

"photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image"
This is a requirement of the commission of the crime, not a crime in and of itself under the law we are discussing.


Like I said, thought crime.
Yes, we're back to the intent, or thought crime as you say. This is a very common concept in our law, as is prurient interest.


What I'm saying is that in the vast majority of laws (the exceptions are likely unjust as well), the damage is what determines that a crime or infraction has taken place. In this case, the damages (if you construe a sort of violation of privacy to be a damage) are NOT considered at all. The only thing that matters is if you have lust in your heart. It's insane.

So by this logic, the pervos busted on "To Catch A Predator" have been charged unconstitutionally because there were no damages (There is no specific victim, as the "child" in these stings are portrayed by adults). I can't believe all those prostitution and drug stings have been a waste of time (No actual coitus/drugs, NO DAMAGES) Also, we can throw out every driver that has ever been charged with a DUI/DWI after being stopped for having a headlight out. Because there were no damages. Or possession of a grenade. No damage has occurred; they didn't use the grenade, they just had it. Possession of child porn: not illegal! (No damages; the porn already existed). No driver's license? NO DAMAGE!!!! We might as well only charge people with crimes after damage has occurred.

[StanUpshaw]

No, the law clearly describes (a)[actus reus] the act of photographing someone without their consent, coupled with (b)[mens rea] the intent of satisfying prurient interests. Guilty Act + Intent = Criminal Act. The act is made guilty by the intent. This is a basic concept of criminal law in our country, and many other cultures for many years.

Again, this would only be valid if the "guilty act" actually was one. But it's not. It's a legal act.

So I'll ask again: What other law changes some legal act into an illegal act simply because of an alleged mental process?

[Chigworthy]

Again, this would only be valid if the "guilty act" actually was one. But it's not. It's a legal act.

So I'll ask again: What other law changes some legal act into an illegal act simply because of an alleged mental process?

Easy. We can start with the very common charge of Receipt of Stolen Property. Go ahead, look it up, study it, look at different state's interpretations of the federal code. A very common charge, which can only be fulfilled by knowledge of the article being stolen.

[StanUpshaw]

No. Whether you are found guilty or not, the act itself is still illegal. If you didn't have intent, you won't be punished, but the goods will be confiscated regardless. You are not free to receive stolen goods, regardless of intent.

Try again.

[Chigworthy]

No. Whether you are found guilty or not, the act itself is still illegal. If you didn't have intent, you won't be punished, but the goods will be confiscated regardless. You are not free to receive stolen goods, regardless of intent.

Try again.

Just read any interpretation of that law in our country and you will realize that you are completely wrong. The person who recieves the stolen goods is not guilty of a crime unless they are aware of the stolen nature of them. It doesn't matter what happens to the goods; it's silly to even bring that into the argument. Simple and plain, the act of receiving stolen goods is only a crime if the recipient knows that they are stolen. When you reply, either post a legitimate link to code that says otherwise, or admit that you are wrong. And stop bringing up what happens to the fruits of the crime after the crime has been committed. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing, and if I am wrong, succinctly explain why.

To say
Whether you are found guilty or not, the act itself is still illegal. is just plain stupid. How can an act be illegal if you aren't guilty of it? By definition, an illegal act must be committed by someone (hence the term act), and if that someone isn't guilty of committing an illegal act, how is it still illegal? These are very basic concepts of law.

And you never responded to my refutation of your statement that a crime can't be committed without damages, but since that ridiculous assertion had little to do with our discussion, feel free to continue ignoring it.

[StanUpshaw]

Just read any interpretation of that law in our country and you will realize that you are completely wrong. The person who recieves the stolen goods is not guilty of a crime unless they are aware of the stolen nature of them. It doesn't matter what happens to the goods; it's silly to even bring that into the argument. Simple and plain, the act of receiving stolen goods is only a crime if the recipient knows that they are stolen. When you reply, either post a legitimate link to code that says otherwise, or admit that you are wrong. And stop bringing up what happens to the fruits of the crime after the crime has been committed. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing, and if I am wrong, succinctly explain why.

If I haven't made it clear in my posts in this thread and others, I don't give much of a shit about the mechanics of law. I care about principles. I can't quote you laws, nor will I be precise with terminology. I admit I'm not a lawyer. Fuckin forgive me.

Lawyer or not, this is pretty clear cut: In your example, the transaction is illegal. If you didn't intend to commit the crime, you aren't going to be punished. The reasons that you know the transaction is illegal is because there was legal intervention. A further indicator is that the thing you bought was taken from you. That doesn't happen when you make a legal transaction.

In the photography example, the act itself is NOT illegal.
If you intended to get aroused, only then is the act is illegal.
The differences are obvious.

I beg someone else (who doesn't have such a personal animosity toward me) to weigh in on this.


And you never responded to my refutation of your statement that a crime can't be committed without damages, but since that ridiculous assertion had little to do with our discussion, feel free to continue ignoring it.
It was a digression on a digression so I ignored it. But to about half of the things you listed, yes, I believe they are unjust.

[Chigworthy]

First things first, I have no personal animosity towards you. Really. To me, this is just a non-personal discussion on a message board. I don't really know you, and within the bounds of a message board, I never will.


In the photography example, the act itself is NOT illegal.
If you intended to get aroused, only then is the act is illegal.
The differences are obvious..

In the receipt of stolen property example, the act itself is NOT illegal.
It is not illegal to receive stolen goods unless you know that they are stolen
If you intended to receive goods that you knew were stolen, only then is the act illegal, because it is coupled with the intent.
The similarities are obvious.

Like I said, I believe the Texas code that started this whole thing is sound. It requires any prosecution to demonstrate that the accused had the intention, like many other laws. This is how many criminal laws work. It's not a new thing.

[StanUpshaw]

If it's not illegal, then why can't you keep the stolen car?

[PapaBear]

If it's not illegal, then why can't you keep the stolen car?
Because it's not yours! Once it is discovered that you have something that's stolen (without your knowledge) you aren't charged, but you still don't own it.

[StanUpshaw]

Because it's not yours! Once it is discovered that you have something that's stolen (without your knowledge) you aren't charged, but you still don't own it.

So you're saying there's a law against doing that?

[Snoogans]

So you're saying there's a law against doing that?

do you argue just to do it? You cant possibly believe this shit

[StanUpshaw]

do you argue just to do it? You cant possibly believe this shit

Boy, you're dull.

I don't believe it. That's the fucking point. Because whatever the situation, whether it's stolen, or some finders-keepers bullshit, it's NOT LEGAL.

[Snoogans]

Boy, you're dull.

I don't believe it. That's the fucking point. Because whatever the situation, whether it's stolen, or some finders-keepers bullshit, it's NOT LEGAL.

actually if you find something, bring it to teh police and no one claims it for 30 days its yours

[Chigworthy]

Boy, you're dull.

I don't believe it. That's the fucking point. Because whatever the situation, whether it's stolen, or some finders-keepers bullshit, it's NOT LEGAL.

The mental number that I have for your age is losing digits.

[StanUpshaw]

Yes, continuing a futile argument with such an obstinate twat is certainly a folly of youth.

[Chigworthy]

Yes, continuing a futile argument with such an obstinate twat is certainly a folly of youth.

Stick it to the man, kid!

[Jujubees2]

Because it's not yours! Once it is discovered that you have something that's stolen (without your knowledge) you aren't charged, but you still don't own it.

So possession isn't 9/10ths of the law? :glurps:

[weekapaugjz]

actually if you find something, bring it to teh police and no one claims it for 30 days its yours

It depends on the state. I know NY is 1 year and 1 day from when item is turned in.

[Chigworthy]

So possession isn't 9/10ths of the law? :glurps:

Which law?

[Serpico1103]

No, the law clearly describes (a)[actus reus] the act of photographing someone without their consent, coupled with (b)[mens rea] the intent of satisfying prurient interests. Guilty Act + Intent = Criminal Act. The act is made guilty by the intent. This is a basic concept of criminal law in our country, and many other cultures for many years.

What will be used to prove intent? Intent can be inferred, it need not be something expressed.


So by this logic, the pervos busted on "To Catch A Predator" have been charged unconstitutionally because there were no damages (There is no specific victim, as the "child" in these stings are portrayed by adults).

Those laws are only permitted because the state is protecting children, a lower standard is permitted. Also, the defendants express a specific intent to commit a crime. Usually in the chat they say they want to have sex with the "child", acknowledge the "child's" age, and then show up to the house with condoms, alcohol, and sex toys.
I see that as far different than taking a picture of someone's cleavage.
The only good I can see of this law is paparazzi getting charged for taking pictures of celebrities at the beach. Except for Kim Kardashian, those pictures are for scientific research.

[Chigworthy]

Those laws are only permitted because the state is protecting children, a lower standard is permitted. Also, the defendants express a specific intent to commit a crime. Usually in the chat they say they want to have sex with the "child", acknowledge the "child's" age, and then show up to the house with condoms, alcohol, and sex toys.
I see that as far different than taking a picture of someone's cleavage.
The only good I can see of this law is paparazzi getting charged for taking pictures of celebrities at the beach. Except for Kim Kardashian, those pictures are for scientific research.

I never said that it was the same thing. That was a response to the statement to the effect that without damages, there is no crime, which is wrong.

I can see another good thing that can come of this law. Maybe people who are walking around in public won't find themselves on some porn site against their wishes. I'm not that interested in the "right" of someone to take and post pictures in that context. But like I said, what needs to be watched closely is what the courts do with the law, and with any law.

[Serpico1103]

I never said that it was the same thing. That was a response to the statement to the effect that without damages, there is no crime, which is wrong.

I can see another good thing that can come of this law. Maybe people who are walking around in public won't find themselves on some porn site against their wishes. I'm not that interested in the "right" of someone to take and post pictures in that context. But like I said, what needs to be watched closely is what the courts do with the law, and with any law.

I am not sure if the case of the 17 yo taking pictures of classmates clothed bodies has gone to court yet. But, I don't think he needs to be charged as a felon and put on a sex offender list.

If you are taking upskirt, down blouse, in bathroom, in dressing room pictures, I think you should be charged with a crime.
If you are taking a picture of some random girls ass, covered by jeans, I think that is something society must accept.

[Chigworthy]

If you are taking upskirt, down blouse, in bathroom, in dressing room pictures, I think you should be charged with a crime.
If you are taking a picture of some random girls ass, covered by jeans, I think that is something society must accept.

I tend to agree with this. In your second example, while creepy, I can't see law enforcement spending a lot of time trying to establish the intent of someone like that, unless there was a bigger issue, such as stalking or pedo-ish behavior.

[Serpico1103]

I tend to agree with this. In your second example, while creepy, I can't see law enforcement spending a lot of time trying to establish the intent of someone like that, unless there was a bigger issue, such as stalking or pedo-ish behavior.

If it rises to the level of harassment or it involves children, I can accept state involvement. Otherwise, it is too gray an area to involved the state. Especially when it means you will be labeled a sex offender.

[Serpico1103]

I tend to agree with this. In your second example, while creepy, I can't see law enforcement spending a lot of time trying to establish the intent of someone like that, unless there was a bigger issue, such as stalking or pedo-ish behavior.

Where do you stand on Maryland's use of the wiretapping statute?
People have been convicted for videotaping police in public during an arrest, because under the DA's interpretation the conversation between the officer and the arrestee is a private conversation, not taking place in public. However, I don't think the cases have gone to the court, people have probably accepted a plea due to the severity of the charge.

[Serpico1103]

Maryland's AG admits police and DAs improperly used the wiretapping statute. Pigs. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3227.asp)