Texas’ Improper Photography Law Ruled Unconstitutional by Appeals Court

Damaso

Damaso

Photojournalist
Local time
7:57 PM
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,379
View My Gallery
There’s a legal battle currently raging in the state of Texas that concerns photography. More specifically, it concerns improper photography — defined as photographing another person without their consent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of another person — which was illegal until the state’s Fourth Court of Appeals declared the statute prohibiting it unconstitutional.

http://petapixel.com/2013/08/31/tex...es-improper-photography-law-unconstitutional/
 
This law needed to be thrown out. Too many overzealous DA's have been mis-using it to prosecute mainly street photographers who were doing nothing illegal or improper.

There are other laws to prosecute those who are in fact taking improper images.

This law was simply too broad..
 
'defined as photographing another person without their consent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of another person'.

To prove this would be incredibly complicated, I would have thought. Or is it up the accused to show that it wasn't the reason they the took the pictures?
 
Suppose I get a sexual thrill from watching people drink coffee?

It's not a lot weirder than a lot of what you can read in Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, including the spelling of his name.

Cheers,

R.
 
lawrence said:
'defined as photographing another person without their consent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of another person'.

To prove this would be incredibly complicated, I would have thought. Or is it up the accused to show that it wasn't the reason they the took the pictures?
Click to expand...

it's Texas.

we never let things like that get in the way of throwing someone in jail.
 
Roger is so right, the strangest things can be a turn on for some ... I mean what could possibly be sexy about washing a car?

None the less I find this image oddly alluring ... just me I guess! 😀

bikini-girls-wash-car.jpg
 
redisburning said:
it's Texas.

we never let things like that get in the way of throwing someone in jail.
Click to expand...

Boy, isn't THAT the truth! And as much as I hate painting anything with a broad brush, I'll say that the Texas judiciary, in general, has more skeletons in their closets than their local cemeteries!
 
lawrence said:
'defined as photographing another person without their consent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of another person'.

To prove this would be incredibly complicated, I would have thought. Or is it up the accused to show that it wasn't the reason they the took the pictures?
Click to expand...

Not that complicated. Just have all the male jury members stand up when the offending photos are displayed.
 
hepcat said:
Boy, isn't THAT the truth! And as much as I hate painting anything with a broad brush, I'll say that the Texas judiciary, in general, has more skeletons in their closets than their local cemeteries!
Click to expand...

They make the skeletons, the more the better it seems... and costs be damned.

I think Texas was the weirdest state I've lived in.
 
Good news.

This law was flawed on numerous levels. For one thing the wording is amazingly ambiguous. No doubt the Texas legislature will write a new law ASAP with more precise wording. Then that law will be eventually be over turned for other reasons.

I do wonder if Texas already has Constitutionally valid invasion of privacy laws or if the State even has a legal definition of privacy on the books? For instance in NY State personal privacy is legally defined as a place where it is reasonable to assume you can disrobe without being viewed by others. In NY this definition was used to rule in favor of a photographer who photographed women in bikinis on public property.

Please don't whine about the difference between legally correct and personal ethics. This difference is one reason laws evolved in the first place.
 
Damaso said:
There’s a legal battle currently raging in the state of Texas that concerns photography. More specifically, it concerns improper photography — defined as photographing another person without their consent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of another person — which was illegal until the state’s Fourth Court of Appeals declared the statute prohibiting it unconstitutional.

http://petapixel.com/2013/08/31/tex...es-improper-photography-law-unconstitutional/
Click to expand...


Hallelujah!
 
It seems to me that the thing most likely to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of most people here is the Leica they're carrying...............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bmattock
  • Locked
Texas: Improper Photography
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
12K
jl-lb.ms
jl-lb.ms
Carterofmars
Article: UK Gov nationalises orphans and bans non-consensual photography in public
Replies
3
Views
1K
colyn
colyn
Back
Top Bottom