Texas: Improper Photography

[wgerrard]

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.

My favorite Texas experience came in the early 1970's eating breakfast at some diner a bit east of Odessa. Two guys that looked to be in their fifties were at the next table. One of them was visibly upset, ranting on and on about how his daughter had insulted him, abandoned her upbringing, and probably ruined her own life. He went on like that through my second and third cup of coffee, as I wondered what the poor girl had done.

Well, what she had done is come home from her freshman year at the University of Texas in Austin wearing jeans, and refused her papa's request to wear a dress at dinner. She'd gone off to college and "been exposed", or so the guy repeatedly lamented.

I guess in the 70's in west Texas jeans on a woman who wasn't on horseback were a sign of the apocalypse.

 

[Kevin]

There is no Texas.

 

[Olsen]

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.

Spoks seem to forget that it is illegal to take pictures of any strangers here in Norway, regardless of age or purpose, without their consent. This consent does not have to be written, though. Particularly, this goes for publishing of pictures. So, any great street photographers are not going to come from Norway. Don't underestimate the size of the Norwegian Bible Belt. We even have one religious party, Christian Democrats, - not two, as in USA. When they shared power with the conservatives a few years ago, we called it the most corrupt government in Norwegian history. No small legacy.

 

[bmattock]

Well, what she had done is come home from her freshman year at the University of Texas in Austin wearing jeans, and refused her papa's request to wear a dress at dinner. She'd gone off to college and "been exposed", or so the guy repeatedly lamented.

Growing up in central Illinois in the 1960's, we were not allowed to wear 'dungarees' (aka blue jeans) to public school. We wore ugly dress slacks (no uniform, but it had to be slacks) and changed into jeans when we got home from school.

 

[Steve M.]

Reason #1001 why we moved from there. As a Southerner, I thought people were just prejudiced against us whenever they would say things like "oh no, I did my time in Texas and am NOT going back". Having lived there, and in Galveston no less, I now understand what they meant. They just don't like Texas!

I can't tell you how often I saw what would be considered far right wing thinking mixed w/ fanatical Baptist fundamentalism there, and we lived in one of the most "liberal" cities in the state. It was odd because people were, on the surface, polite. Always said please and thank you, would step outside when their cell phone rang in a restaurant (hear that StarSucks yuppie vermin), etc. But it was all on the surface. I remember that several people in Galveston were arrested for cursing! Please. WHAT freedom of speech? Once it was simply a daughter using the F word in a Walmart parking lot. She was overheard by an off duty cop and arrested on the spot. They weren't even arguing, she just used it casually. I once had to kick a contractor out of the house because in a little conversation we were having he mentioned that the real problems in this country started when minorities and women got the vote, only he didn't use those words. I couldn't believe it, especially since my wife is not only a woman, but black.

If it hadn't been the hurricanes and the corrupt and inept government in Galveston (remember any other Texas politicians like that?) that made us leave, it would have been nonsense like this that would have driven us out.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

So they come down hard on this person for a) taking pictures (of girls) and b) possessing porn in his car. This naturally makes anyone a pervert with the intent to gratify himself.

Also he has to be a pervert because everyone knows perverts come in one form and only one form. Male, the older the better, who prey only on young girls in the park.

 

[parsec1]

Don't go to Texas and 'Forget the Alamo'.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

One of the first incidents of this happening that I can remember was back in 2005 in Southlake, Texas, which is a very, very affluent suburb in the Dallas - Ft. Worth area.

Louis Vogel was at an Octoberfest celebration when a woman complained to police officers that Vogel was acting suspicious and taking "weird" photos of women and young girls. The officers approached Vogel and asked him what he was doing. He explained that he had just purchased a new digital camera and was practicing with it. They asked to look at the photos. Based upon the opinion of one of the officers, Vogel's photos were, indeed, illegal based on this new law in Texas.

Vogel was promptly arrested and his camera seized. Later that afternoon, the Southlake police department issued a statement to the press detailing the arrest, complete with Vogel's name. That story played on almost every major TV newcast that evening.

A week later, the Tarrant County DA's office held another press conference and announced that all charges had been dropped against Vogel, his camera was returned to him, and an apology was issued. Vogel, who had absolutely no criminal record of any kind, eventually filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City of Southlake.

This is what Bill is talking about. This man, with no prior criminal record of any type, suddenly found himself arrested, his good name smeared in the press, and forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees. I do not know whatever happened to Vogel's lawsuit, but I would presume that a settlement was probably reached.

Texas has many flaws. It is true that there is a really different mindset to most of the people here. Trust me, we have more than our share of nutjobs in this state, But please, not all of us believe in **** like this. You know, there are a lot of people that live here, and some, believe it or not, actually think progressively. We do what we can to move our state forward. And I can tell you for sure that you can pick any state and find plenty of whacked out people or laws.

So give the Texas bashing a rest. It shows a lack of intelligence and a lack of empathy for the millions of good people who live here.

 

[Spoks]

So give the Texas bashing a rest. It shows a lack of intelligence and a lack of empathy for the millions of good people who live here.

Rick,

You are absolutely right, and I am sorry.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Rick,

You are absolutely right, and I am sorry.

Oh, hey, no problems, my friend. My home state is such an easy target because we have so many knuckleheads here.

I tell you what is tough, is being a super liberal, like myself, and living in this state. Most folks here think that means I am a communist, and I am being serious. Over the years, I have lived all over the U.S., but I still keep coming back to Texas. I love this place, and like I mentioned before, there are lots of progressive minded people here trying to change this terrible reputation that Texas has. It is a long, uphill battle, but we still keep fightng the good fight.

 

[user237428934]

So give the Texas bashing a rest. It shows a lack of intelligence and a lack of empathy for the millions of good people who live here.

Texas promoted it's image to the world with the television reportage called Dallas and with George W. Bush. And now you tell us that this isn't true. I am shocked.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Yes, I suppose that I sound pretty silly when I admonish others for a lack of intelligence when I live in the state that gave the world George W. Bush....

And please, don't get me started on that idiotic TV show.:bang::bang:

 

[xxloverxx]

Everytime I read about photogs getting arrested for photography of any sort, it makes me wonder what the world's come to.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Everytime I read about photogs getting arrested for photography of any sort, it makes me wonder what the world's come to.

I agree. And seeing as how I shoot basically nothing but street, it is really becoming a problem. I have been stopped and questioned at least a dozen times here in Texas, since 9/11, by cops and security people asking what I am doing when I have been out shooting.

Most of the time, it has not been that big of a problem, but there have been a couple of incidents where it got a little hairy. And heaven forbid if you aim a camera at a kid, in public.

I am so sick of this crap....

 

[wgerrard]

Louis Vogel was at an Octoberfest celebration when a woman complained to police officers that Vogel was acting suspicious and taking "weird" photos of women and young girls... The officers approached Vogel... Based upon the opinion of one of the officers, Vogel's photos were, indeed, illegal based on this new law in Texas.

That illustrates the danger and the weakness of this and any other law that allows the criminality of an act to be determined by the opinion of random individuals. The law's vagueness puts too much power into the hands of the police. Unless strict guidelines are in place to determine when a photo becomes illicit, and unless police personnel are trained and supervised to follow those guidelines, then people using cameras can be arrested, charged, and detained at the whim of a single complainer and a single agreeable cop.

An ordinary cop in the field is no more capable of applying Texas' vague law about photography than he is able to walk into an accounting firm, spend 15 seconds looking at the books, and determine if someone is embezzling.

I suspect the legislators who passed the bill saw no need to improve the language because they were of a mindset that simply assumed that all the good people of Texas know a dirty picture when they see it, so what's the problem? No doubt, too, many Texans, and many other Americans, place greater value on using the state and the cops to enforce their notions of proper behavior on others than on crafting coherent and appropriate legislation.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, as always, when we're not talking politics, I admire your logic and rational thinking. Excellent post, well said.

 

[wgerrard]

Bill, as always, when we're not talking politics, I admire your logic and rational thinking. Excellent post, well said.

Thanks.

Everyone's political leanings are rooted in their own personal history. I believe it's natural for people to ally with others to seek advantages over others. Since success and the rewards of success -- power and wealth -- accrue to the few, by definition, I think human history is essentially one example after another of the powerful and wealthy few oppressing everyone else. I don't think libertarianism offers a useful antidote to that because I don't think it creates an organized countervailing force of enough strength and will to push back against the few. Conservatives seem to be motivated by a conviction that the wealthy and powerful few should rule. Today's American liberals, where I nominally fall, seem to me to look at the universe through very dim rose-colored glasses, holding a view of human nature that is far more bright and cheerful than mine. Our history and our behavior today shows we are capable of much evil, and of rationalizing our support for it.

Human nature doesn't change. It's been the same since Cro-Magnons left Africa. We do behave differently in different situations and contexts, and as a result of different experiences. But, to my eye, that simply means that, if we'd lived in the right times and places, we'd be cheering at the Coliseum, or cutting hearts out of living sacrifices in Central and South America, or shopping for slaves in Charleston, or bringing offerings to the local ziggurat.

 

[Trius]

Good thing Ralph Eugene Meatyard is dead, or he'd be a felon.

 

[bmattock]

Human nature doesn't change. It's been the same since Cro-Magnons left Africa. We do behave differently in different situations and contexts, and as a result of different experiences. But, to my eye, that simply means that, if we'd lived in the right times and places, we'd be cheering at the Coliseum, or cutting hearts out of living sacrifices in Central and South America, or shopping for slaves in Charleston, or bringing offerings to the local ziggurat.

In other words, we don't get to choose our times, but our times define us. And as to politics, it's a matter of choosing your poison.

I agree that human nature does not change. With regard to the current topic, this is clearly a law which seeks to control not just human behavior, but thought and desire itself. It attacks the nature of self and desire, and throws echoes back to our Calvinist roots (nationally speaking). We fear and dislike not just what others might do, but what they think. I believe there is some hypocrisy there, because in order to fear what we believe they think, we must be able to imagine it ourselves. Our society is rife with clear and obvious examples of our own mass inner conflict regarding certain taboo subjects involving children and adults; it's used as mass-media and potent advertising, for God's sake. If many of us did not respond, it simply would not work, and we'd arrest and string up the advertisers.

Our (US) system of laws may have stemmed from a Judeo-Christian understanding of morals and the responsibility of the individual in society, but our founders took special care to limit the powers of government lest it run amok, and our laws are basically intended to be narrowly tailored, and to restrict unwanted behavior, not unwanted thought. A person is free to think what they will. But this law illustrates that when it involves some deep Calvinist taboo, many of us will cheerfully ignore such concepts in favor of restricting what a person thinks. In the case of this law, we acknowledge that the photos themselves are of no consequence - they would be legal if NOT taken 'with intent to arouse'. It is not the photograph we address, but the intent of the photographer, the lust we presume is in their heart (and it probably is in there, in this fellow's case). We punish the thought, not the action. But because we have no law to criminalize thought, we created a framework under which such a (presumed) deviant can be prosecuted.

This vague and catch-all law is bound to be abused, since as you said, it is left up to the tender mercies of people not qualified to know what is in a human heart and mind.

At the same time, normally rational people consider how they would feel if a person pointed a camera at their daughter. If the person were a pervert, they feel anger, disgust, and want them arrested. If the photograph was instead taken by a random ATM machine or traffic signal camera, there is scarcely even recognition that it happens, let alone furor. Everyone can easily understand WHY people feel protective way about their offspring, but no one can articulate what harm is being done that should be regulated by law. The damage they see is non-tangible. We have no crimes (other than this perhaps) that prosecute people criminally for making others feel bad, let alone send them to prison for up to two years.

 

[bmattock]

Good thing Ralph Eugene Meatyard is dead, or he'd be a felon.

Then you have photographers like Jock Sturges and others who blatantly publish photographs of underage children not just nude, but sensual nude photos. They have the advantage of a world-wide stage, a reputation as artists, scrupulous adherence to law in all other respects (not a whiff of something naughty happening, parents always present and consenting, etc), and the support of a world-wide community of artists and wealthy patrons.

I would suppose Jock would be well-advised not to go to Texas.