Photographer arrested at Texas Octoberfest gathering

[JohnL]

Sorry but being a creep isn't a crime. We have to have some tolerance beyond the norms. We are seeing a rash of vile accusations against normal (slightly aged) men with cameras in the UK. Why? Well I suspect for the same reason that aged women in the witch trials were fair game, they're a bit creepy..

Unless he was taking obscene naked pictures of people *without their consent* I'd suggest we line up on the side of some liberty and freedom. If he was taking up the skirt pictures then do him for making a nuisance.

Same answer I gave to Bill. If he was behaving normally, it's hard to figure why he got into trouble, but I suppose it can happen. If it did, then I agree wholeheartedly that it's bad news.

 

[bmattock]

I agree, Bill, but I cannot imagine there was not something about the way he was behaving that sounded an alarm with someone. If not, then we really have a problem.

I contend that we really have a problem.

Really, please examine your statement. "THE WAY HE WAS BEHAVING."

I take photos in ways that are different from the way people normally behave all the time. I might flop on my stomach to take a shot of a group of people at an airport - I want a particular point of view. It attracts attention. Anyone who examined my photos (like hell am I going to give those up voluntarily to the police, they'll have to arrest me) might see photos of a lot of legs and feet - the point I was trying to make. Some might think I was a foot-fetishist, getting my jollies from that. Under Texas law, I'm a felon and deserve to be in prison if the state can show that I 'know' that any person gets sexual satisfaction from photos of feet and I made the photos of people without their permission.

According to the news stories, he was taking photos of crotches, butts, that sort of thing. Clothed ones. Icky. Creepy. But a crime? He wasn't taking 'upskirt' photos. He wasn't using a so-called 'x-ray' infrared lens on a video camera to try to see through clothing. He was behaving in a way that squicked someone.

Legal but squicky behavior is a crime now? Yeah, this is a world I want to live in.

This law is clearly designed to prevent people from being made uncomfortable.

I agree, no one would like to have some freak point a camera lens at them, take a photo of their [whatever] clothed body part, and then go home and do God knows what to themselves. Icky. Nasty. Makes me feel all oogly.

But is this a crime? Should it be a crime? Is 'being made to feel icky' a crime?

I think laws like this are dangerous. Sure, we stopped this guy, and it may be that he's a really nasty little man who drools over photos of kids in their underwear in Sears catalogs. Justice was done, right?

But the law, as written, can be applied to innocent people too. And I believe that laws that CAN be abused by authority figures WILL be abused by them in due time. Everybody wants to think the best of our laws, courts, and police officers, but times change, people change, and a law that today only catches nasty little people who live at the fringes of our society tomorrow can be used to suppress basic freedoms.

Example - if the newspaper prints a photo of girls at the beach in their bikinis, that's a simple news story. But if one person gets the wrong idea and is turned on by the photos, and the newspaper even suspected that some freak somewhere might respond that way - the newspaper is liable under this law. The photographer could go to prison, convicted of a felony. A felony. That means he loses a bunch of basic rights most Americans enjoy, like the right to vote. He is on a 'sexual predator' list for the rest of his life and must tell the local police where he is living and the neighbors put up his mugshot on telephone poles around his house and set fire to his car in the driveway.

But of course, that will never happen. Right. And the FBI didn't wire-tap and follow around hippies and other 'subversives' in the 1960's for the crime of being hippies. Those FBI files that they now release under the FOIA are just made up.

Well, maybe they did abuse the law back then, but that was a long time ago. They'd never do it now.

So let's look at something that DOES happen, every day.

Another example - this one can make people mad, so I'll try to go lightly. I think it illustrates the same principle, though. I call it the 'anti-ugly guy law'.

In the USA, sexual harassment laws are a big deal. People get fired, companies get sued, and some have even gone to prison for engaging in such behavior.

And make no mistake - I am against sexual harassment. I know what they 'mean' by the laws - and I think that kind of behavior is reprehensible and should not be permitted. Fair enough.

But the laws as written in various states usually phrase it this way: "Unwelcome sexual advances'. Unwelcome? Well, if a nice-looking guy tells a woman she has a nice bottom, she might not object to that. So that is NOT sexual harassment. If an ugly fat guy does it, that's creepy. So that is against the law. The anti-ugly guy law.

I've made it seem much more simple than it really is - but the fact remains that I've seen the law used in ways it was never intended - because a woman feels upset about the way a man she finds ugly instead of handsome looks at her.

I had a college professor who had a problem with his eyes - some medical thing, they looked like they were popping out of his head. He had a number of 'sexual harassment' charges lodged against him before he was fired for it. I knew one of the women who complained. She told me that she just could not stand the way he looked at her with those eyes. In class. The way he looked at ALL of us. She found it creepy. She felt she had a right not to be creeped out by his eyes. She filed charges. He was fired.

Do I have a problem with that? Yes, I do. Eyes are eyes. If she could stand another, less creepy professor looking at her, then she should not have had a problem with this guy - or at least he should not have been fired for it. Laws that attempt to protect people from feeling a certain way (creeped out, basically) are not only doomed to failure, they are very given to abuse in time.

No one has pointed out to me the victim of the crime in the case described at the top of this thread. Who is the victim? How were they damaged? What harm did they come to, or were they in danger of? Mental, physical harm?

I don't see a victim. I don't see a crime. I see a creepy guy who would creep me out too. But I dislike laws designed to keep me from ever having to feel creeped out even more.

But Texas appears to like 'em.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[kiev4a]

Guess I''ll go out at lunch today with my camera and concentrate on boobs and butts. Nothing wrong with that. If those people out in public don't want their parts photographed, they should wear trench coats.

 

[bmattock]

Guess I''ll go out at lunch today with my camera and concentrate on boobs and butts. Nothing wrong with that. If those people out in public don't want their parts photographed, they should wear trench coats.

Not sure what you're saying here, Wayne.

Do you agree that a person in public has no expectation of privacy? That's what the law has been in the USA for a couple of centuries. If you disagree with that, then anyone can disagree with having themselves photographed at any time, and to fail to do so would be a crime. That would presumably include ATM machines, surveillance cameras in convenience stores, etc, etc.

There are no gradations here - if a person in public has no expectation of privacy under the law, then that's what it is. Yes, I presume that if a person in public has a problem with someone seeing them wearing short-shorts, they should not wear them. I fail to grasp the concept - I want you to see my lovely butt in my Daisy Dukes, but you'd better not take a picture of them? What sense does THAT make?

Bear in mind that the person in public still has the ownership of their image - it cannot be sold for commercial use or put up for public ridicule without their permission, for example - assuming they do not fall into that narrow category of a 'public person' such as a celebrity or a politician, etc.

So far, in general, the law says you can take a photo of a person in public whether they like it or not. What you do with that photo in terms of selling it falls under civil law. Now the Texas government is saying that what you do with that photo in terms of looking at it can make the taking of the photo a crime.

So what do you mean?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[kiev4a]

Bill:

I no not agree that a person in public has no expectation of privacy. I believe there are (or should be) graduations. There is a difference, as far as I am concerned, between a person who attends a public event (street fair, football game, political rally, etc.) and someone who is just doing what people have to to each day outside their homes -- shopping, running errands, etc. And I do believe there is a difference between shooting photos at a public event and shooting pictures of specific body parts at a public event. And there is a difference between photographing someone without their knowledge and asking permission.

Yes, all those whereases and wherefores make for interpretive enforcement by officials. But the "black and white" rules were written when the world was different.

Debating this serves no real purpose because probably 90 percent of forum members agree with you, so you are preaching to the choir. I'm not gonna change any minds here. But as I have stated previously-- as more and more people feel they have less control over their private lives, they will become more protective and aren't going to care whether the stranger with the camera is a pervert or somebody who just likes to take photos. And the claim that a person has no expectation of privacy when outside his or her home is going to ring more hollow.

I've heard all the "freedom of expression" speeches many times. There was a time when, as a member of the media, I agreed with that philosophy --"Privacy be damned. If you are in public you are fair game!." But now I'm a lot older and the world is a lot different.

This is one topic where we will just have to agree to disagree.

Not sure what you're saying here, Wayne.

Do you agree that a person in public has no expectation of privacy? That's what the law has been in the USA for a couple of centuries. If you disagree with that, then anyone can disagree with having themselves photographed at any time, and to fail to do so would be a crime. That would presumably include ATM machines, surveillance cameras in convenience stores, etc, etc.

There are no gradations here - if a person in public has no expectation of privacy under the law, then that's what it is. Yes, I presume that if a person in public has a problem with someone seeing them wearing short-shorts, they should not wear them. I fail to grasp the concept - I want you to see my lovely butt in my Daisy Dukes, but you'd better not take a picture of them? What sense does THAT make?

Bear in mind that the person in public still has the ownership of their image - it cannot be sold for commercial use or put up for public ridicule without their permission, for example - assuming they do not fall into that narrow category of a 'public person' such as a celebrity or a politician, etc.

So far, in general, the law says you can take a photo of a person in public whether they like it or not. What you do with that photo in terms of selling it falls under civil law. Now the Texas government is saying that what you do with that photo in terms of looking at it can make the taking of the photo a crime.

So what do you mean?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[JohnL]

When I said "the way he was behaving", I did *not* mean "creepiness is criminal". I meant *only* that if he was behaving in a way that positively suggested he might be involved in some criminal activity, felony or misdemeanor, then there could be grounds for a complaint or for police intervention. I really don't believe my thinking on this matter is significantly different from your's, Bill. I do believe that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... then there's a *possibility* it is a duck, and if "being a duck" happens to be a crime, then no surprise if police take an interest. Whether their behaviour in this case was appropriate or not, I don't really know. I do know that news sources are mostly pretty unreliable. That was the main point I was trying to make.
I did say one of the alternative scenarios was that "he really was a creep and deserved everything he got". By that I meant not just that he might have been physically unattractive or mildly eccentric, but truly behaving in a manner suggesting something more serious. If that's what your concern was about, then please accept this clarification.

 

[bmattock]

Bill:

I no not agree that a person in public has no expectation of privacy. I believe there are (or should be) graduations. There is a difference, as far as I am concerned, between a person who attends a public event (street fair, football game, political rally, etc.) and someone who is just doing what people have to to each day outside their homes -- shopping, running errands, etc. And I do believe there is a difference between shooting photos at a public event and shooting pictures of specific body parts at a public event. And there is a difference between photographing someone without their knowledge and asking permission.

Yes, all those whereases and wherefores make for interpretive enforcement by officials. But the "black and white" rules were written when the world was different.

Debating this serves no real purpose because probably 90 percent of forum members agree with you, so you are preaching to the choir. I'm not gonna change any minds here. But as I have stated previously-- as more and more people feel they have less control over their private lives, they will become more protective and aren't going to care whether the stranger with the camera is a pervert or somebody who just likes to take photos. And the claim that a person has no expectation of privacy when outside his or her home is going to ring more hollow.

I've heard all the "freedom of expression" speeches many times. There was a time when, as a member of the media, I agreed with that philosophy --"Privacy be damned. If you are in public you are fair game!." But now I'm a lot older and the world is a lot different.

This is one topic where we will just have to agree to disagree.

Wayne, OK, I understand. I actually suspect that more people would agree with you than with me - it seems most people are not really all that upset about the concept of 'giving up some freedoms' in exchange for more privacy/security/etc. And I mean no insult here - if that's what people believe, then that's what they believe.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[kiev4a]

Wayne, OK, I understand. I actually suspect that more people would agree with you than with me - it seems most people are not really all that upset about the concept of 'giving up some freedoms' in exchange for more privacy/security/etc. And I mean no insult here - if that's what people believe, then that's what they believe.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bill:

Hey. This is why there are forums...so folks can express their opinions🙂

Regards

Wayne

 

[RJBender]

... But as I have stated previously-- as more and more people feel they have less control over their private lives, they will become more protective and aren't going to care whether the stranger with the camera is a pervert or somebody who just likes to take photos. And the claim that a person has no expectation of privacy when outside his or her home is going to ring more hollow.

People are going to start assuming that every man taking pictures of strangers in public is a pervert. Like Satbunny said, it's already turning into a "witchhunt" in the UK.

Suggestion: Start wearing a RFF, camera club or CIA hat when you go out shooting photos of strangers in public places. That way, the authorities will know how you intend to use your photographs! It saves the "thought police" a lot of work! 😛

If there is a trend developing, it's one where the authorities and businesses can watch you in public with survelliance cameras but you can't use a camera to photograph what's happening in a public place. We have already seen that with people getting questioned, detained or arrested by the authorities for photographing important buildings, bridges and monuments under the provisions of the Patriot Act.

I'm not going to take another vacation in Texas.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

There are parts of Ohio you wouldn't want to visit either. Of course I don't know why anyone would anyway.

Is it still legal to photograph people in public?

R.J.

 

[bmattock]

To me, the most interesting (and objectionable) aspect of this is that it *is* essentially the "Thought Police" at work.

If I take a photo of greyhoundman in his bathroom doing calisthentics, that's illegal. Got it.

If I take a photo of greyhoundman in public, and later try to sell that to Avon for a billboard, that's illegal (civil law, though, not criminal). Got it.

If I take a photo of greyhoundman in public, and keep the photo for my own personal use, that's legal. Got it.

Unless I use the image to do something naughty to myself. Then it is illegal.

And the police can tell that I intend to do something naughty to myself because my camera has lots of pictures of closeups of people's fully-clothed butts, etc, on it.

So, it really *is* all about what happens in my own mind. If I *think* perverted thoughts, then the *otherwise legal* actions I take become a crime.

What if I just SEE greyhoundman in public, go home and do unspeakable things to myself? There's no camera involved, just me and my nasty little memories of the vision.

When will they pass a law against THAT?

Because that is essentially what they're saying here. It is not what you do, it is how you feel about it that makes it a crime.

If I have a photo of a clothed butt on my digital camera, who has been harmed? The person whose butt it is? I can't identify him or her, it's just a fully-clothed butt. And maybe I was witnessed taking the photo by the person whose butt it happens to be. And they don't like it. Or maybe I used a telephoto lens and took the photo from far away, and they have no idea. Under Texas law, it is a crime either way.

WHO IS THE VICTIM?

I dunno, it is getting dark outside. Maybe it's a good thing film is going away - public photography seems to be dying as well. Unless you like taking only landscapes, I guess.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Careful. You may get in trouble for landscapes, depending on what's in the photo.

Of course, I was just thinking...hmmm. Every 'woman's magazine' is full of nothing but photos of clothed butts. They're obsessed with 'em. So I guess if my wife has a couple of those magazine on the coffee table, I can be arrested - after all, they make me think 'bad thoughts.'

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RJBender]

Well, the mainstream news media has been silent about this case. I suppose they want the public to think "that's one less pervert on the street." If you Google ""louis vogel"+arrested+texas" you can now get 4 pages of results. Two weeks ago, I got less than 2 pages.

R.J.

 

[bmattock]

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5221710/detail.html

The case was just thrown out of court - nothing 'improper' in the photos, apparently.

Read the story - it is everything we've been saying. The guy spent 24 hours in jail, now has an arrest record for life, he had to pay for an attorney, his mug shot was splashed all over every newspaper and TV news station in Texas, his equipment was confiscated...

And the prosecuting attorney says, OOOPS! Well, at least the system worked. He didn't get convicted or sent to prison.

Right.

I agree with R.J. - I'll never, never, never, set foot in Texas again. They can pound sand before they ever get a dollar of my money, ever.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RJBender]

Thanks for the update, Bill. 🙂

R.J.

 

[JohnL]

Just curious, but in the USA could he sue for damages for wrongful arrest? By which I mean would he have a chance of winning any meaningful compensation. I'm basically against litigation, but this would seem entirely justified. They also should expunge his record.

 

[bmattock]

Just curious, but in the USA could he sue for damages for wrongful arrest? By which I mean would he have a chance of winning any meaningful compensation. I'm basically against litigation, but this would seem entirely justified. They also should expunge his record.

I believe a person can bring suit for wrongful arrest, but in general to win, one has to prove malicious intent, not a simple mistake or the person being found not guilty or having the charges dropped. As to expunging his record, I don't think they can remove an arrest record - technically it is not the same as a 'criminal record' even though it will still be there when the police do a search.

But I am not a lawyer.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[JohnL]

Thanks, Bill.

 

[Kevin]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Older men taking pictures of young public booty falls under the latter two freedoms.

Is it a thought crime to pretend these inalienable rights exist when states pass laws that infringe upon them?

You bet! I insist that the state of Texas be closed for investigation (and then rightfully be given back to the Mexicans).

 

[parks5920]

It's amazing how much street photography has changed since the 1930's. Back then Leicas and spontaneous photography were so new that people in public were often puzzled. (Just look at the people in photos by Ben Shahn, Walker Evans and others. They seem so surprised to see a camera, if they notice or care at all.)

Today, cameras don't even need to be hidden; some are the size of a penny, and everyone has one. Is real street photography dead, when anyone can spy on anyone?

Yeah, it's amazing how much everything has changed since the 1930's.