Upskirt Pics??

[satan666]

Oklahoma court rules public upskirt photography perfectly legal

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/395/01wr2.jpg

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

1. Disgusting decision

2. An important decision that supports freedom of speech

3. An important decision that supports horny guys around the world

[Bob_Dobalina]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

I'm all for public (and pubic) nakedness from females, but taking an upskirt picture without the girl knowing is just wrong, especially if she's underage. I wouldn't want that shit done to me (if I was wearing a kilt). Fucking backwards oklahoma.

[The Godfather]

I like naked and nearly naked women like most of you but I do believe they need to be willing participants in any shenanigans.

[MillyMc]

What was even worse was the logic used in the decision (which I hopefully remember from reading the article): Which was essentially that a woman who wears a skirt in public should have no expectations of privacy. The court just basically validated the "she was asking for it" defense.

[Choppie]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

Thats a typical fall back argument, the fact is the court was ATTEMPTING to make people responsible for their own decisions. Somebody wants to wear a skirt so short that every time they yawn people standing near get lessons in carpet and drape fung shui then OF COURSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK!

So if one were to walk outside naked to get the mail and someone snaps a pic, should that person be to blame for one's proclivities?

Fact is, if you don't want people looking up your dress...don't wear one. I'm so fucking sick of gawd damned pushy people. You can chose to do whatever you want. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR DECISIONS! You wanna be a nudist, fine, people are gonna stare, its a consequence, life goes on. You wanna wear short skirts, fine, pervs are gonna look up them, its a consequence....people need to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions and stop expecting society and the government to punish everyone that questions your decisions.

[Tobias Funke]

While I understand the courts decision, I believe that the guy was an idiot for getting caught the way he did. There are some levels of expectations with regard to privacy. Since the courts have eroded the expectations of privacy for use in police stopping you and searching you in public, they are forced to say that "here too, there is a lower level of expectations in privacy." You are forced to take the Ying with the Yang people.

[DSF Guest 1]

OK...I voted against it cause seeing celebs getting outta cars and all the photogs holding cameras down near the ground to get the upskirt pic is just taking it a little too far...but...with that being said, I still look at the pics...I guess a typical american? I don't know...I love steak, but I don't want to witness a cow get slaughtered...I'll just take the end result...

[The Godfather]

I totally agree with toiletbater. And I'll add, if you get the shot naturally, cool but look at some of the shots of the paparazzi taking shots. They look like they are changing oil in the driveway and on top of that they want to charge DS for the pic. Now, that's bullshit!

[Choppie]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

Now that shit should be grounds for a self defense ass whooping. I support LOOKING and snapping pictures that PRESENT THEMSELVES. Not what these scum do.

[dusio22]

I worked at a mall once and we had this guy who went around with a camera in his bag taking pics upskirt. He finally got caught.
What was sick was that he focused on younger girls.
I think it's a slipperly slope from pervert picture taker to pedophile.

[caesar273]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.



I'm all for freedom of speech and the bill of rights, but if you telling me that my daughter or wife can't wear a skirt in public without expecting someone to look up it is insane. All due respect but that is the most insane comment I have ever heard. I understand that women who wear skirts that barely cover their ass cheeks are asking to get stared at, but that is not to stay that a girl coming home from Catholic school in her uniform deserves to have some perv trying to get a peek at her panties. I dont know the specifics of the case, but to say that women cant wear dresses is like saying that the victim of a drunk driver injuring them should have expected it since they were driving on the road at 2am when people drink.

I'm sorry, I am as much a perv as the next guy but I think this is way off base. I believe people should be held accountable for their own actions but not every girl wearing a dress should have to wear shorts to keep perverts from looking at their panties. There has to be a line somewhere.

[Choppie]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

So basically you're saying hold everyone accountable for their actions, EXCEPT people who wish to wear exposing clothing.

The drunk driving analogy is inaccurate as well. One must be licensed to drive, correct? Part of the licensing process is understanding the laws, as drinking and driving is illegal and can HARM people, doing so breaches said licensing agreement, hence the suspensions and such.

Are you then saying that we should begin licensing people to wear shirts? (granted this could be a GREAT thing considering some of the people who choose to wear skirts, lol)

As for the reference to a minor, which was not what the case was about, that is a different cat to skin...so to speak. That my friend falls into pedophilia and other laws that protect minors from exploitation. I'm a guy, and I HAVE worn skirts (high school prank, drunken festivities) and I understood that by doing so I was going to have people looking and such. Grown women have the ability to choose their own clothing, and if they choose a shirt they can take steps to ensure that pervs do not look up them, i.e. cross their legs, wear leggings, or even shorts underneath.

The people that complain loudest about this shit are the ones that are least responsible for their own actions. "Sure, lets strip down on a public beach and run around" only to get mad when people snap pictures.

Simply stated they want to do whatever they want (which I am a fan of) and do not want to have to deal with any consequences. Now if one were to go out of their way to look up a shirt, that IS ASSAULT, not a simple upskirt. Big difference is in the intent. Like the afore mentions paparazzi slimeball actions.

By your logic I should be able to dress like a clown and sue people for looking, laughing and taking pictures.

You said people should be accountable for their actions, how is punishing other for your attire decisions accountability.

[DSF Guest 1]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.
if that line happens to be a tampon string hanging from between her legs...probably not gonna get as many looks:D

[Choppie]

Also I feel I must point out, I am not attacking anyone personally. Merely debating both sides of a story. As no one else played the devil's advocate thus far I felt compelled to.

You guys are expressing valid points, that even I as a father of two little girls find myself hard pressed to argue. The simple fact remains that I believe responsibility to the responsible.

[Choppie]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

OK, most of you guys are expressing valid points. Shasturbator is just making me throw up in my mouth a little;)

[caesar273]

I understand what you are saying completely, and I guess at this point we need to decide where the line is. How short does a skirt have to be before they are "Asking for it"? To me a girl wearing a skirt that barely covers her ass is at some point has to expect that guys are gonna look. I am a firm believer of If you are gonna show it I am gonna look. However a professional woman who is wearing a business skirt that drops just above the knee shouldn't have to assume that because they are wearing a skirt any guy has the right to look up her skirt. I understand I used a bad example with the school girl because of the minor issues. However in a similar instance the person standing in line at a department store with a knee length or longer skirt should be protected by the law from someone trying to sneak a peek at her unmentionables.

To me your original comment suggests that any women wearing any type of dress should just expect any man to look up her skirt with no legal recourse. Does that mean that any man can walk up to any woman wearing a skirt and lift it up to see whats underneath?

As for my drunk driving example, the view was from the victims point. So if I wear driving home from work late at night, I am an IT guy so it happens a lot, and a drunk driver hits me I should have expected it because it was late at night when drunk drivers are typically on the road?

Just because you can see up a girls skirt gives you the right to?

Oh and i am not taking it personal either, I just love a good debate.

[MillyMc]

Everybody is responsible for their own actions, but they also have the right not to have their rights impinged upon by the inappropriate actions of others. The case isnt about a woman's responsibility to dress appropriately, but a woman's right to personal privacy.

I believe from the story that this wasnt some girl with a short skirt, but a creep that had set up a camera in a bag or something to sneak it under women's skirts to snap a shot. There is a reasonable expectation that because their lady parts are covered, she wants them to be covered.

Its also a slippery slope. Can a guy drop down to the floor to look up a skirt? Can he lift a skirt as long as he doesnt touch the girl? At what point does a man cross a personal line? With a woman? With a guy?

Its a creep thing to do and the government shouldnt be allowing it to happen. I think Sexylion hit the nail on its head talking about how the court is thinking big picture on this. These cases are never really about the actually crime, but about the law; in this case how little actual personal privacy that we have. You appear to have a Liberatarian slant, and if I were you, I would be more concerned about those loss of liberties then about ensuring that a person realizes that they are responsible for the reaction to their attire.

[towdog]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

better than fucking WisCuntson.


Now then....if I remember the court decision when this was reported a while back, (since this is old news here in the backwards state) the court said that there was no current statute that prevented these pictures from being taken and therefore he couldn't be charged. The ruling also encouraged the state legislature and local city governments to enact laws to in the future protect short skirt wearing sluts and make it illegal to snap shots of their slots.

The guy was charged under the peeping tom law. But the law only protects you in your home, a locker room, dressing room, restroom, etc. Not outside in the public. If he had snapped the picture while she was trying on dresses in Sears this never would have made the news. But think about it. If he had been charged and convicted for snapping a picture, up a skirt, in public, then the same thing would have to be done to any person seen at a sporting event taking pictures of cheerleaders when they kick or jump. That would include their family members. A skirt is a skirt, public is public, and right is wrong.

[towdog]

Tulsan tries to revise 'peep' law

by: MICK HINTON World Capitol Bureau
3/13/2008 12:00 AM

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The state House on Thursday will consider a Tulsa legislator's bill that could help rectify a problem with the law that came to light recently when a suspected "Peeping Tom" in a Target store was freed by a court.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a charge against a man accused of "situating a camera underneath the skirt of an unsuspecting customer" must be dismissed because it had occurred in a public place.

The appeals court said it was restricted by current Oklahoma law that prohibits such an action only if it occurs "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy," such as a locker room, dressing room, restroom or a place of residence.

Rep. Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, said she has been working on a bill since last summer to address this very problem. Her measure, House Bill 2606, would make such an offense a crime, wherever the offense occurred. Peterson said it is a case of catching up the law with current technology, such as the advent of cell phones that take pictures.

Peterson's bill calls for prosecuting the offender for a misdemeanor, with punishment of up to a year in prison and/or a $5,000 fine.

The current "Peeping Tom" statute calls for a felony count with punishment up to five years in prison.

Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris said Wednesday the more specific offense should remain a felony.

"People have the expectation of privacy over their bodies," he said. "If the woman was naked, that is one thing, but it is another thing if a cell phone is taking a picture of her crotch."

He said the court's decision is a "confusing analysis."

"How do I go back to this victim and tell her she has no expectation of privacy to her private parts in a public place?" he asked.

Peterson said her misdemeanor proposal "is a place to start."

Harris said he agrees it is probably a stopgap measure that is a step forward.

The lawmaker said that due to overcrowding problems within the prison system, she is not sure another felony should be put on the books.

"We want to make sure that there is a law that makes this a crime," Peterson said.

In the 2006 case, Riccardo Gino Ferrante, now 34, was accused of shooting pictures from an angle underneath a woman's skirt, without her knowledge, in the open shopping area of a Target store.

The court's summary opinion affirmed by four of five judges said a district court had ruled correctly in dismissing the charge, based on current law, "although the court in interpreting and applying particular statutes may think the Legislature should have made them more comprehensive."

This is precisely what Peterson says her bill will do.

Tulsa community groups that work with women and girls were concerned about the implication of Tuesday's decision.

"We can't believe that measuring decent behavior has become whether it falls within a loophole or technicality of the law," said Barbara Findeiss, executive director of the Child Abuse Network.

Offenders often find dangerous loopholes that stand in the way of common sense, she said.

"The obvious is not so obvious anymore," she said.

Felicia Correia, chief executive officer of the Tulsa YWCA, said the law needs to be changed.

"You would think that in a store, under your skirt, you could expect privacy," Correia said.

The law needs to protect women against the ways technology can be used to hurt them. Not doing so would send a damaging message to the community, she said.

"It will be more and more difficult as technology advances," Correia said.

The associate director of Domestic Violence Intervention Services/Call Rape, said she is confident the law will change and she understood the judges' task when looking at the case.

"They have to look at a lot of distinctions," said Donna Mathews, who is also an attorney.

Legislators have worked quickly in the past on issues involving women and privacy, Mathews said. "I think they will in this case, too," she said.

-----------------------------

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

Added: Apr 18, 2008

From: okiecampaigns

Duration: 3:40

Governor Brad Henry has signed into a law HB 2606 that closes a loophole in the state's Peeping Tom law.The legislature passed the bill to outlaw the taking of photographs of a person's private areas while in a public place and the governor signed it Friday.The bill was drafted after charges were dismissed against a man who had taken photos under the skirt of a 16-year-old girl inside a store in Tulsa.A state appeals court ruled that the girl was not in a place where she could have "a reasonable expectation of privacy."Sen. Brogdon said, "Unfortunately, we learned this past year that our law on Peeping Toms has not kept up with technology, which has made it easier and easier to photograph people without their knowledge. In 2006, an Oklahoma man was accused of using his cell phone to take pictures underneath a teenager's skirt while she was shopping. The man was charged under the current law, but the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said it did not apply in his case, because the girl was in a public place.I'm sure the victim, her family, prosecutors and other citizens were outraged to learn that the man could not be convicted of violating her privacy by taking those pictures. So was I, and that is why I chose to be the Senate author of HB 2606. This legislation will prohibit the use of any photographic, electronic or video equipment to be used without the subject's knowledge to take indecent pictures. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor, and face up to a year in prison and a fine of $5,000.It was encouraging to see House Bill 2606 receive unanimous approval from our State Senate and I look forward to its signage into law. I do believe in less, not more, government. But new technology can result in new types of crimes, and when necessary, we must make sure our laws are keeping up with the times."

[mull072]

does this mean we can all look forward to more upskirt pics from Oklahoma?
i dont wanna debate the pros and cons of upskirt shots........suffice ta say underage way not cool!
but gotta say i farkin love that pic!
peace

[megagreg1]

Ok here is the problem I suppose if the girl is wearing panties it is one thing but if she is flying free then we have an age of consent issue. so what to do what to do.

[Choppie]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

So your idea is that one that doesn't take steps to ENSURE their privacy should be able to have others punished due to that?

[caesar273]

I think the idea is that when a woman puts on clothes that cover a majority of her body that it is implied that she doesn't want someone try to sneak a peek at what she has on underneath.

[Choppie]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

I'll agree with that, actively attempting to lift a shirt or using tools to look up them is assault. Upskirt in my definition means the lady did something to bare all.

[MillyMc]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

What I think is happening here, and what I was responding to, is when the guys either put a camera in a shopping bag and then lower the bag under the skirt to take a picture or they blatantly reach down and stick the camera under the skirt and snap a picture.

If a girl has a miniskirt on and it sitting down, legs wide open, obviously that is her responsibility to guard her privacy. If she is not being deligent in watching how she crosses her legs, then she has no right to claim that someone looking is unlawful.

But how much more could a woman do to protect her privacy if the man is doing the above actions? Her only other recourse would be not to wear a skirt. That cant be fair to women, right?

I also think it is especially creepy, because this sort of passive agressive behavior shows a complete lack of respect for the personal boundries of women. If a guy cannot respect that in wide-open public, what more is he capable of? Its a behavior that gets into objectification of women that makes me a little weird and uneasy.

[Choppie]

Got ya, bit of a miscommunication there. I agree with most of that.

[JerryN]

My thoughts would be... if it happens by chance then enjoy the moment! But to actively pursue and do it in some creepy/pervy way such as the "lowering the shopping bag, etc" thats too far. Celebrities getting out of cars with their legs wide open... they must kind of expect it... but at least they know they are being photographed.

[RandomFactsAboutCats]

Cats are the sleepiest of all mammals. They spend 16 hours of each day sleeping. With that in mind, a seven year old cat has only been awake for two years of its life!

[nachos1345]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

Why are you shitting!?

[DontSnatch]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

lol i fucking love this guy.

[Nekyo]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

That's actually somewhat interesting :)

[satan666]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

Don't encourage him :D :p

[Boon]

Back on track. This thread is useless without pics. Continue moral discussion.


http://lakecityquietpills.com/photo/multihost/images/76370107186565588425.jpg

[Foetus]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

yeah!

http://content.imagesocket.com/images/jj_7_281.jpg

[Homo_Explosion]

Content and Download links visible to registered users only.

Posting self pics now??

[Secnarf047]

http://lakecityquietpills.com/photo/multihost/images/57778602890413119309.jpg

[tlock]

http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/20091-oklahoma_court_rules_public_upskirt_photography_pe rfectly_legal.jpg

[danieldamone]

I wonder what their stance on downblouse pictures is. possitive, perhaps?

[Carlos Spicy Wiener]

Don't really care since it doesn't do anything for me.

[brodiemaxx]

I love dirty pictures as much, if not more so than the next guy, but to me upskirts are not hot. Its a girl in her most unsexual and is becoming sexualized because we wanna see if its white cotton or animal print. Lets just find a chick at the bar, bring her home, and then take pictures of the panties on the floor from now on. Holy shit, I'm trying to start a revolution amongst the one group of people I know won't go for it. Fuck.

[bigtexdy]

If she wants to flaunt it then go for it, taking advantage of anyone is not my cup of tea though. I say toss the offenders in jail.