Texas: Improper Photography

Status
Not open for further replies.
bmattock said:
One criticism others have made of the law is that technically, if you take a photo that someone else finds 'sexually gratifying', you have broken the law. It is very broadly written. I can't understand why it hasn't been challenged for constitutionality.
Click to expand...

it does seem to be very broadly worded, relying on circumstantial evidence and the opinion of others.

The "promote" clause could be applied to a second party who had nothing to do with taking the original photographs, at least as I read it. E.g., if a website posts an image that is later challenged under this law, what is it's liability?
 
bmattock said:
Here's the actual link to the Texas statutes:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm

Hopefully this one makes more sense. Sorry, got the first cite off a lawyer's website, it may have been redacted:



One criticism others have made of the law is that technically, if you take a photo that someone else finds 'sexually gratifying', you have broken the law. It is very broadly written. I can't understand why it hasn't been challenged for constitutionality.
Click to expand...

That version makes a lot more sense.

As for your criticism: we are entering Rule 34 territory. (google it). Those trees and seagulls can probably be sexually gratifying for someone.
 
bmattock said:
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
Click to expand...

That clause is wildly non-specific. Regardless of what kind of photograph you take, there will be some deviant out there who's turned on by it. Does that mean that all photography should be outlawed?

marke said:
Everytime I hear about something like this, I get closer and closer to just go back to photographing birds...or maybe just the trees in my back yard.
Click to expand...

Don't tell PETA. You're violating the rights of birds!
 
wgerrard said:
it does seem to be very broadly worded, relying on circumstantial evidence and the opinion of others.

The "promote" clause could be applied to a second party who had nothing to do with taking the original photographs, at least as I read it. E.g., if a website posts an image that is later challenged under this law, what is it's liability?
Click to expand...

Indeed. I have photos on Flickr that have been 'favorited' by people who have 'questionable' profiles as it seems to me. I post a photo of a young girl performing a traditional Highland dance, and some people favorite it because they are clearly into Highland dance. Others favorite it because they're clearly into photos of little girls in dresses. Yeah, I find it revolting. But I certainly did not take those photos to appeal to those people. Under Texas laws, though...
 
bmattock said:
Yeah, I can see how this would tend to put people off taking any photographs that have people in them at all. There's always someone who thinks you're doing it for the 'wrong reason' and in Texas, that's illegal!
Click to expand...

Seriously, I won't stop until it is illegal. And hopefully, by then I'll be long gone. I understand how some people would get concerned, and there are times when I just don't feel comfortable or confident enough to do it. But I refuse to conform to the paranoia that is being forced upon us. I love taking pictures of kids, as many of us do. It's sad that we can't be seen as someone who captures and shares the joy of this time of life:

http://www.pbase.com/marke/image/82116737/original
http://www.pbase.com/marke/image/80645250/original


Or their unique perspective:
http://www.pbase.com/marke/image/81234934/original
 
This whole issue could have been simply avoided .... go to the coach and ask! If he/she says no, just go away.

I had a cub scout den watch a game, and did just that, no trouble at all with a bunch of strangers hanging around.

For example, I have a new camera, it shoots slow motion, I go ask "can I take pictures" They say yes, I have consent.

I was with a photography teacher, he explained parents were stressed about him taking photos of their kids jumping around in a fountain. He simply told them it's a public place, if you don't want your kids in my photos, then leave. I would never have the cajones to do that! ( and it was in Texas )

Dave
 
djonesii said:
I was with a photography teacher, he explained parents were stressed about him taking photos of their kids jumping around in a fountain. He simply told them it's a public place, if you don't want your kids in my photos, then leave.
Click to expand...

Do people really have no idea how much time they spend on camera, every day?

Their kids do too...
 
The nice thing about vague laws is that you can use them to harass and prosecute bad guys that wouldn't otherwise be breaking a defined law. That's often a good thing, provided we elect and hire good, wise people to enforce and prosecute (and also ignore) our laws.

Imagine trying to write a perfect law that treats everyone fairly yet has sufficient teeth to deter and control the bad guys... I think it is nearly impossible, which is why we have courts and judges.

We keep thinking this is a contemporary problem but the fight to balance liberty vs. control has been with us since we started having any sort of legal rights....

Personally, given the nature of my work, I could see an over-zealous prosecutor going after me for some of my photos. But as a Father, if I saw a creeper doing torso shots of my daughter, I'd want some legal recourse. In the end, I'm going to use common sense and not tempt fate by making lewd photos in the Bible Belt... and at the same time, I'm going to threaten the creeper with a beating if he doesn't leave the kids alone.

That may not please the ACLU or the legal absolutionists, but it seems about right to me....
 
Last edited:
Frank Petronio said:
The nice thing about vague laws is that you can use them to harass and prosecute bad guys that wouldn't otherwise be breaking a defined law. That's often a good thing, provided we elect and hire good, wise people to enforce and prosecute (and also ignore) our laws.
Click to expand...

And when we have vague 'catch-all' laws, we end up with grandparents being stripped of visitation rights to see their grandchildren, being labeled as 'sex offenders', and having to spend their retirement money to defend themselves against spurious charges of 'improper photography' because they took pictures of their naked two-year-old grandchild in a wading pool.

What do we tell those people? We're sorry, but hey at least the system works? Gosh, what a shame, but oh well?
 
Wrong. Check http://www.dumblaws.com.

For instance, in the city of San Francisco:

- It is illegal to wipe one’s car with used underwear.
- Giving or receiving oral sex is prohibited.

And we need a thread for all of them. Lots to do, Bill.

Roland.
 
Frank Petronio said:
The nice thing about vague laws is that you can use them to harass and prosecute bad guys that wouldn't otherwise be breaking a defined law. That's often a good thing, provided we elect and hire good, wise people to enforce and prosecute (and also ignore) our laws.
Click to expand...

Just to note: This is the difference between rule of law and totalitarianism. Just so you know.

If a "Bad Guy" is not breaking a defined law, he is not breaking a law. The fact that you are supporting this power for the law enforcement community (which historically has been known to be overzealous) is somewhat shocking. Scratch that. I am not easily shocked. It is appalling.
 
ferider said:
Wrong. Check http://www.dumblaws.com.

For instance, in the city of San Francisco:

- It is illegal to wipe one’s car with used underwear.
- Giving or receiving oral sex is prohibited.

And we need a thread for all of them. Lots to do, Bill.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Anyone get arrested for violation of those laws?

This one got a guy arrested, he faces up to two years in prison and a felony conviction.

And it's photography-related.

So I think it is relevant here.
 
degruyl said:
Just to note: This is the difference between rule of law and totalitarianism. Just so you know.

If a "Bad Guy" is not breaking a defined law, he is not breaking a law. The fact that you are supporting this power for the law enforcement community (which historically has been known to be overzealous) is somewhat shocking. Scratch that. I am not easily shocked. It is appalling.
Click to expand...

The basic concept has always been that anything not prohibited is permitted. This has led to problems in the past - new drugs, for example, that are legal only because they are not specifically described by the law. Some people do think that 'catch all' laws are a good thing, but like you, I am somewhat horrified to find that there are people who believe this. I can't change what they believe, but it hurts me to know that they live in our society and would want that for all of us.
 
bmattock said:
If a photographer were standing next to him who did not have a car load of porn, he would have broken no laws in the state of Texas - unless they have found a way to determine what people are thinking. So it is not the action of photography that is illegal, it's the state of mind.

I have a problem with laws that require photographers to prove they are not sickos or they go to prison.

When this law was passed in Texas years ago, I took note with horror, but I thought surely it would be challenged for constitutionality and be found wanting. That has not happened. There have been people charged under the law for silly reasons, like grandparents who lost visitation rights to the grandkids because they took naked photos of their two-year-old grandkid splashing in an outdoor pool. Yes, the charges were dropped; after they spent tens of thousands of dollars in their legal defense.

Crimes tend to specify behaviors and not mental state. I have a strong aversion to laws that attempt to regulate not what people do, but how they feel about what they do. Yes, a person might be able to defend themselves from such a charge if they are not actually sickos, but at great expense and possibly costing them their jobs, families, and whatever money they may have. Too high a price to 'save' people from having photos taken of their daughters in public under what would OTHERWISE be perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

It is confusing to me as to why there are so many people in this world that just because they view a life incident in a certain manner believe that everyone else must "see it their way" or, if you disagree, you are a pervert. The thought Police are everywhere. Your recalling of the grandparents accused of child pornography has many variations. Too many incidences of the innocent actions of parents, friends, etc. being judged by someone else's standards. I am especially fearful of this behavior as my Grandfather warned me repeatedly, "be wary of the man that is always afraid that you are going to cheat him". I wonder, where are the minds of the people that feel it necessary to judge the thoughts and actions of the rest of us. :confused:
 
Spoks said:
Texas the the one state in USA which is the farthest away from European civilisation. Texas is some kind of Iran. With Coke and Burgerkings added.
Click to expand...

Having spent some time in Texas over the past 35 years, I'd have to say that we are one of the top five Southern States in that regard.

In this part of the US on should never underestimate the religious furor of the American Taliban - I mean religious right.

With regards to the above mentioned law - the key words are "without the person's consent".

Do note that a properly signed release form by a person over 18 or by the parents when photographing minors means that you are good to go.

With a consent form or not - don't shoot sexually explicit photos of minors - period - in this part of the country.
 
Solinar said:
With a consent form or not - don't shoot sexually explicit photos of minors - period - in this part of the country.
Click to expand...

Sexually explicit does not include fully clothed, playing soccer. At least not here.

In addition: I am pretty sure that "child pornography" is covered by a different, and more specific, stature. I would recommend against taking or having sexually explicit photographs of children. Anywhere. Especially in the US. Most especially in the Southern US.
 
Solinar said:
With a consent form or not - don't shoot sexually explicit photos of minors - period - in this part of the country.
Click to expand...

Is a photograph of a clothed person 'sexually explicit'? We're not talking about photographs of any unclothed body parts here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom