20% off all products!   Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago

So Is This Good Or Bad For People Who Shoot Street?

I have rather mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm glad that our rights to shoot were upheld. On the other, this fellow was being a jerk and should have expected trouble.
I'm concerned that people acting like this will eventually cause us to lose freedoms due to their irresponsibility in using and abusing those freedoms.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/upskirt-photos-legal-dc_n_5966406.html

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Karl Anderson

9 Years Ago

I don't fully agree with the judge's ruling but I understand it. I think its going to get tougher and tougher to keep our own privacy in a world where everyone now has good photographic technology at the tip of their fingers and can share it in the blink of an eye.

 

Dan Turner

9 Years Ago

Misleading headline. From the actual judge's ruling:

"...the pictures Mr. Cleveland took...do not capture hidden parts of the body, but rather portions of the body exposed by the individual's voluntary physical positioning and the fit and fabric of the clothing worn. The images captured were not "incidental glimpses" and in fact were images that were exposed to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths, or in fact any lengths whatsoever, to view."

If women want to be half-naked in public, GREAT. But she has no right to be offended when the public notices.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

 

Kelley Lee McDonald

9 Years Ago

Here is a clip of that article that defines it for me:

"She cited that the photographs "were not 'incidental glimpses' and in fact were images that were exploded to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths, or in fact any lengths whatsoever, to view."

I agree with Dan.

 

Kelley Lee McDonald

9 Years Ago

Added thought.

We are living in a world where you should assume you are being filmed every step of the way.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

When I first heard of the ruling, I literally thought it was an upskirt shot. The term has an immediate negative connotation, as well it should, so when it's used wrongly, it's hard to get people to see past it.

 

Janine Riley

9 Years Ago

It's really very simple ; practice discretion for that which you would like to keep private.

Whenever the media sensationalizes a trivial matter - they diminish the nature of a serious offense.

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago


"Whenever the media sensationalizes a trivial matter - they diminish the nature of a serious offense." - There's a big truth.

 

Tamara Lee Madden

9 Years Ago

"accused of taking pictures up women's skirts without their consent or knowledge"

Disturbing.

What if I take a shot of you in the restroom without your consent or knowledge?

Are you still cool with it?

 

Kelley Lee McDonald

9 Years Ago

Dear Tamara,

That is not what the article spoke of.

Added thought. Accountability, accountability, accountability...

 

Janine Riley

9 Years Ago

Tamara, did you read the article ? The " upskirt " reference was misleading. He was taking pictures - in public - of women.

It isn't nice, or pleasant . I don't condone it - but it is not illegal to take pictures of people in public places. The fact that their underwear was showing... is the same thing a person's eye would see in public.

A restroom - is a private place - & one would have reasonable expectations of privacy.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

Again, that was my first thought, that this was a true upskirting case. It wasn't. In upskirting, the creep sees what no one else sees. In this case, he shot what anyone else could see. It doesn't make him Man of the Year, but to rule against him would set a dangerous precedent where legit photographers could become even more of a target to LEOs who may -- or ay not -- mean well.

 

Tamara Lee Madden

9 Years Ago

So if you wear a skirt and are sitting on stairs then you deserve for your picture to be taken by a stranger? Gross.

 

Janine Riley

9 Years Ago

I don't think anyone implied "deserve" - just that it is not illegal.

Many things in public are gross, or ill mannered - but they are not illegal.

If the glimpse of underwear became illegal - than no photographer could ever go out & shoot in public if a bra strap was out of place.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

OK, Tamara, let's ask this: how long do you think someone should go to jail for taking a photo of a scene anyone walking by could have seen? As photographers, we can think the man was being creepy, but also realize that it's a really slippery slope when this becomes a punishable offense.

Upskirting is wrong both in the eyes of the law and in most folks minds, as it should be. But this is dangerous territory where we could be put in the position of explaining to LEOs, who probably aren't photographers, what we are doing. More than we already do anyway.

 

Tamara Lee Madden

9 Years Ago

I think someone implied "deserve".

Hot button issue for sure! Privacy/lack thereof.

I'm not sure he should go to jail. He may need some sort of help though.
The article mentioned upskirting. The cops thought he did something wrong. The images were erased.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

Well once again, I don't see what all the "hub-bub" is about. (Now there's a word you haven't seen in a while! lol)

It's just like the hysteria about people listing to their phone calls.

The only problem I have with these issues is that I might get arrested for murder by boring the poor devil to death by having to listen to my phone calls.

Now I have to worry about some poor photog having to gouge his eyes out if he happens to catch a naked image of me through his camera lens.

The fact is, there is no such thing as privacy any more. Any one can buy a device that will capture any cell phone calls and they are legal. Cell phone signals are nothing more then radio signals. In fact you can build one with a few bucks worth of parts form Radio Shack.

Cameras are everywhere, cell phones, drons and those small "pro" something that are all the rave with the people into action sports. I see them all over the place no on telescopic poles, triggered by a remote and you send them by wifi to your laptop and onto your FB page or any other page on the Internet within a minute to two.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

Go to jail?

We can't get the mother muggers and baby rapers in jail and keep them there! We send them to the NFL and pay them $10 million a year instead! lol

 

Tamara Lee Madden

9 Years Ago

Maybe if you wore a kilt you'd get it ;-)

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

Reading those comments under the stories just makes me want to find a brick wall and bang my head into it until I forgot the comments entirely. The headline didn't help, but it got some people so riled up they couldn't bring themselves back down to read the entire article. This could have been a case where folks said the officers reacted too swiftly without just cause. Instead, it's a case for "damn liberal judges."

 

Tamara Lee Madden

9 Years Ago

Yeah, hot button especially with the NFL stuff of late. The headline did exacerbate for sure.

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago



I have to agree on the sensationalism of the article. Sadly, this is for profit news today. Our mainstream news has the tinge of what used to be reserved for the national enquirer...

 

Abbie Shores

9 Years Ago

There is a book in our local waterstones full of photos of women in the street caught showing their undies by accident. Fetishists love it

However, all those women signed releases.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

HW! " Sadly, this is for profit news today. Our mainstream news has the tinge of what used to be reserved for the national enquirer..."

Right on the money!

And there in lies the problem or at least part of it, with a lot of what is gone wrong in society today. And don't let Hollywood off the hook either!

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

But yet some of them yelling the most will be wearing the least on the closest public beach the next day.

Go figure.

The truth is, way too many gals really don't care if the "right" somebody looks up their skirts but if the "wrong" somebody looks. well then he's a pervert.

I'm talking in a public place here.

 

Abbie Shores

9 Years Ago

We choose what to wear on a beach very carefully. We choose our underwear for a different reason and not for your view normally

 

Iris Richardson

9 Years Ago

I don't agree with the judge either. This guy should be prepared for a really bad beating. I can't see woman to just stand by. There was another case where a guy did this in woman dressing rooms and he did get in trouble for doing so. I don't think this judgement will stand.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

Read the article. Not talking about shooting in restrooms, dressing rooms, hiding cameras pointing upward or anything like that. A guy with a camera shooting in public what anyone walking by could have seen.

 

Andrew Pacheco

9 Years Ago

I have to say....I see some really creepy, voyeuristic photos hiding under the guise of "street photography"

There is a huge gap between what is technically legal and common decency and respect. Just because an activity is deemed legal, doesn't make it admirable or respectable.

I love artistic, tastefully done street photography. I also love erotic art. When street photographers attempt to put an erotic edge to their work, they always cross the line of what I consider to be respectful people watching.

Even if a photographer is shooting something that anyone walking by can plainly see, the composition can isolate and magnify the subject drawing attention to things in a way that a casual observer walking by may not have seen. That's the power of photography!....and that's what makes it wrong, and disrespectful. Legal or not!

 

Andrew Pacheco

9 Years Ago

Oh....and I'm with Iris. Really bad beatings seem to fit this crime as far as I'm concerned.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

So, Andrew, what other "crimes" do you think deserve beatings? And what would you say if someone found you in offense of their own beating mentality?

 

Mike Savad

9 Years Ago

if your wearing an outfit in public where your privates could be exposed - anyone passing by can see them. a photo is no different. i didn't really read the article but i was expecting a guy with cameras on his shoes or hidden under a sidewalk. if the guy is in public, and they are in public and they sit in an exposed way and all the guy had to do was take the picture - then it should be totally legal to do that.

it could be considered entrapment otherwise, where your shooting a group of people and someone flashes you. if anything they were the indecent ones.

now the guy having nothing but crotch shots, that is creepy, its not really illegal unless you did it in a bathroom or a house where they expect privacy. now an Xray camera - that should be illegal because they can see through your clothes, and that is a privacy issue. i wonder how that article deals with a low cut blouse or a wet shirt?

---Mike Savad

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

"I don't agree with the judge either. This guy should be prepared for a really bad beating. I can't see woman to just stand by."

I have no problem with the judge's ruling because there are bigger issues involved here.

However do agree with the "really bad beating". lol

Street justice for out of line street photographers. I can live with that!

This judge is right in line with a ruling some years back. A photographer, shooting from a boat with a long lens, took photos of people on what all the locals know as "Nuddie Beach" just outside Avila Beach, California.

He put them on display in his camera clubs yearly show in a local mall. One of the gals recognized herself and sued.

The judge ruled in favor of the photog. These photos, for what it's worth to the discussion, were very well done and there was no intent to embarrass anyone.

Then the gal sued for commercial use of the photograph and wanted royalties that would have basically priced the photos off the market. Again she lost.

 

Mike Savad

9 Years Ago

people choose what they want to wear, if you want to wear a skirt, just know what the risks are. people will want a peak, simple as that. many have cameras, simple as that. creepy? yes. but this is public. not a dressing room, bathroom, locker room, etc. you can wear pants, like i could wear a kilt, but i don't want to, its my choice to wear pants as it is yours. there is no privacy any more especially when your in public.

now the guy who shot girls panties on the subway i think was different because the train is owned and thereby private. i don't know if it made national headlines i think it happened in NY, but probably other places as well. these things happen, you just have to deal with it.

---Mike Savad

 

Chuck Staley

9 Years Ago

I know what: Let's beat the judge!

 

Melissa Herrin

9 Years Ago

basically saying if women are exposing themselves with the knowledge that that's what they are doing, its legal. Also, that no one can attempt to take a picture of what someone intended to be hidden in regards to private areas. But, its still creepy.. just sayin..on a side note I dont wanna see nobodies nekkid booty or bewbs. Cover up thats gross.

 

Guna Andersone

9 Years Ago

I have divided feeling about this issue. Of course I would not like that somebody shooting under my skirts, but if the wind blows up my skirt at the moment somebody makes a picture. I should sue a wind and not a photographer. If I have very short skit, so chance is big somebody makes upskirt shot even without wanting to make it. The logic says don't have so short skirt or at least have a very nice underwear. And how about sagging trousers- in a hot nice summer day you can't make a street photo without them.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

The real issue here is First Amendment rights.

How fare are you willing to go, or how much control of what you can see or photograph in a public place are you willing to give the government.

For me it is NONE!

We are already on the verge of losing the right to take a picture in our national parks and of national landmarks.

When is enough enough?

I know this is political, but you really can not talk about the OP withing understanding the foundation of the law on which the decision is based and all laws are political.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

The other side of this is if it is going to be illegal for photographers to snap shots like this -- even if by mere happenstance when shooting something else -- is it also going to be illegal for her to show her undies? Maybe the police should have charged her with indecent exposure.

 

Mike Savad

9 Years Ago

the main point of this story that "street" photographers should know about - anyone can sue about anything and they may just win. if you purposely take the picture of someone's body parts, then you may be getting in trouble for that if they pursue it. people wearing skimpy clothes should know better though, and they may just be doing it to invite a lawsuit, its hard to tell.


---Mike Savad

 

Janine Riley

9 Years Ago

You know Joe..., that was my concern . I didn't have time to get into yesterday. someone had already touched on entrapment.

As a female , I do not believe women should have to feel apologetic for having body parts that the opposite sex finds attractive.
Nor should underwear be that offensive .
Salem witch hunt anyone ? It could get ugly real quick.


So , isn't it just logical that women should practice discretion. Don't want it seen - don't show it. Do not attempt to sue or have arrested any person who happens to witness.
"Boy shorts " do nicely under a skirt.


Again - for those who aren't clear - In. Public. Places.


The opposite side of the story is - who hasn't had images ruined by someone who insists on dressing inappropriate ?

 

Pablo Lopez

9 Years Ago

"people choose what they want to wear, if you want to wear a skirt, just know what the risks are. people will want a peak, simple as that. many have cameras, simple as that. creepy? yes. but this is public. not a dressing room, bathroom, locker room, etc. you can wear pants, like i could wear a kilt, but i don't want to, its my choice to wear pants as it is yours. there is no privacy any more especially when your in public.

now the guy who shot girls panties on the subway i think was different because the train is owned and thereby private. i don't know if it made national headlines i think it happened in NY, but probably other places as well. these things happen, you just have to deal with it.

---Mike Savad"

I totally agree. It's everyone's choice to wear what they want to. However, if someone exposes their underwear/body parts in public places, they shouldn't be offended if someone sees them. Can't be simpler. If you don't want anybody to see your underwear, just don't expose it on purpose. They could be seen/appear in photographs/be taped in street CCTVs/whatever.

Different story is, of course, someone taking upskirt shots. But that's not the issue here, as the guy in the article didn't do that.

Everyone can dress as they want to, but if there can be consequences, they should assume them. As Mike says, it's my choice to wear pants, but it could be my choice to wear a kilt as well. If I'm sitting on stairs and someone sees or takes a picture of my underwear, it was a risk I was consciously taking.

 

Pablo Lopez

9 Years Ago

+1, Janine.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

The question that needs to be asked is where does this end up?

As I mentioned before, the laws are made by politicians. So if enough people keep suing over the issue, some politician is going to see it as a way of making a name for himself. And then we are going to get some sort horribly compromised legislation that no one will be happy with because that is what politicians do.

I can see them coming up with something that says, okay photogs, you can no longer take pictures of certain things in public. And you gals can no longer ware reveling cloths in public. And you plumbers need to keep your pants hitched up when bending over a pipe. Wait, that one would maybe be okay.

 

Kevin Callahan

9 Years Ago

Mike Savad writes:
the main point of this story that "street" photographers should know about - anyone can sue about anything and they may just win.

I could not disagree more strongly. The main "point" of this story is NOT about female body parts. It is most assuredly about authority overreach in the form of over zealous police and prosecutors. Just for one moment take the (very tentative) sexual aspect out of this case, and substitute taking pictures of statues or buildings, or even babies in strollers. It was the ignorance of the police and the wrong headedness of the prosecutors (who ultimately took it to trial) without, it seems, actually researching the law. The judge was spot on and we should be cheering, not debating some faux sexually back and forth. People (women) in public today, tomorrow you do jail time for shooting pics of babies in strollers.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

Kevin!

Bravo! Barvo!

Exactly what I was trying to get at but much, much better stated!

This case should have never seen a courtroom. This moved forward the same reason the article writer misused the term "Up Skirt". Because the attorney would get a lot attention if they won it, the DA would get a lot of flack if they did not prosecute and Judge would get a lot of flack if she refused to hear the case. The judge was actually put in a lose lose situation. I bet that attorney and that DA are on her s____ list.

 

Janine Riley

9 Years Ago

Notice how you never see Galleries from female photographers shooting " Plumbers crack "
"just sayin' is all.... " Lol

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago

I dunno... I think I've seen posters. Someone must have shot that.

Just say no to crack, is my opinion on that. :)

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

However, Mike was right about anyone can sue anyone about anything if you can find a lawyer to file the suite or do it yourself.

So, about that shirt Kevin.... if we all chip in and find a lawyer..... lol

Just kidding!

But I am guessing it has a story about it. Am I wrong?

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago


@Kevin - " The main "point" of this story is NOT about female body parts. It is most assuredly about authority overreach..." I agree. I think that's a big take away in this.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

Excellent point Janine!

People seem to have a tendency of taking photos of things that excite them.... Ops... oh my! What does that say about... okay, let's not go there...

Actually I think you gals have a lot better taste then the average guy.

But then again, most of those plumbers are married to someone..... Ops... let's not go there.

But it is an excellent observation!

 

Mike Savad

9 Years Ago

the thing is, we are only seeing half of the story. we aren't seeing how he was shooting it. was he sneaking shots in? was he hiding behind bushes. clearly he was caught, and clearly he knew he was doing something wrong or he wouldn't have erased it all. and perhaps he's had a record of this and it wasn't mentioned. we can blame the govt if you want, but he should have been caught he was doing one particular thing.

i mention this all mostly because some people think it's totally legal to shoot random people on the street. but in reality those people can fire back and sue you. and in this case, win.


---Mike Savad

 

Connie Fox

9 Years Ago

My principal in grade school (San Fernando Valley) wouldn't allow girls to wear patent leather shoes because they might reflect up their dress. In that case the principal was protecting us from what he felt might be a view that none of the boys needed to see at school. Or he could have been a little kinky.

This ruling seems, after one quick read, to focus on women who dress provocatively and then expect that no one will take a picture.

Maybe I'm missing the point, or I'm just too "old school." But if a gal wears a short skirt and no panties, she may be endowed in one sense, but not with a sense of public decorum, decency, good manners, or common sense. She's asking for it.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

I don't know what this guy was thinking. Don't just assume that because someone deletes their pictures, they think they are doing something wrong. Some people do as they are told by authorities, even if it is wrong. Some people see an LEO walking up and they immediately put their camera down or turn it off. I've been told to erase my photographs to which I reply, "No, thank you." I'd wager this guy is not totally innocent here and maybe he's a terrible test case, but then I guess we have the officers on scene to thank for that.

 

Dan Turner

9 Years Ago

"those people can fire back and sue you. and in this case, win."

What case(s) are you citing? In the case we are actually discussing, "those people" (arresting officers, plaintiff, prosecutor, DA and the plaintiff's attorney) LOST. The photographer won.

Oh, and the judge is a woman.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

 

Janine Riley

9 Years Ago

Can't blame the LEO either - unless you know how the scene unfolded.
There may have been some irate multiple accusations of wrongdoing - that simply may not have been the case.

(Remember the woman on the beach with the drone who assaulted the guy because she presumed ( or just wanted it to be) he was engaged in illegal activity ?)




 

Andrew Pacheco

9 Years Ago

The fact that the case was dismissed, in no way was a green light for this guy or others to go creeping around with cameras and intruding on other's privacy.

There is a big difference between incidentally capturing someone's exposed undergarments and/or cleavage and deliberately shooting it. Case dismissed or not this guy is guilty of being a pervert, and the photos he was capturing were not incidental.

Joseph, I have no worries about being found in offense of someone's own "beating mentality", when I'm out in public I'm totally respectful of everyone. I give no one any reason to think I need a serious beating.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

What one may think of as "totally respectful of everyone" might be to someone else the way you view this "pervert."

 

Dan Turner

9 Years Ago

"The fact that the case was dismissed, in no way was a green light for this guy or others to go creeping around with cameras and intruding on other's privacy."

What privacy? The operative phrase here is "in public." The judge confirmed a green light that's been there all along. There is no need to "creep around." If they are on public display, anyone can set up a tripod and shoot all the crotches they want.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

"the thing is, we are only seeing half of the story. we aren't seeing how he was shooting it. was he sneaking shots in? was he hiding behind bushes. clearly he was caught, and clearly he knew he was doing something wrong"

Considering the ruling of the judge, he was not doing anything wrong, so it makes no difference if he was sneaking shots.

You and I may agree that it not something we like or would do ourselves. But there are lots of things that people do that other people don't like. That does not mean it is wrong. It only means it is wrong for those that don't like it.

"i mention this all mostly because some people think it's totally legal to shoot random people on the street. but in reality those people can fire back and sue you. and in this case, win. "

Which case are you talking about. The case in the OP they did not win.

 

Abbie Shores

9 Years Ago

There is a big difference between incidentally capturing someone's exposed undergarments and/or cleavage and deliberately shooting it.

Agreed.

Most of these cases boil down to one thing... Sleaze or not sleaze

Oh, and ethics

 

Kevin Callahan

9 Years Ago

Well, Abbey one persons sleaze is another persons "Rape of the Sabine Women." Or the "David." or thousands (well hundreds) of truly famous art pieces one could site.

Ha Floyd, yes the shirt has a story. That is a Bcalla shirt designed by my son Brad. While in NYC recently, his mother and I did a photo shoot of his outfits to be used in promotion of his new line. He is becoming pretty famous designing for Lady Gaga, Tony Bennett, and Beyonce.

A few years ago in San Diego I was on jury duty with a very pretty young woman who had on a track suit with crop top and thong underwear. I know this because it was VERY evident. As we used to say in the country, you could count her assets. My blind grandma could have seen it. Later that day I was tickled to observe a "street person" older, over weight lady walking down the street in the exact same outfit. In neither case was expectation of privacy a consideration.

This is not about sex. I have spent the past 15 years or so capturing digitally and then painting women I saw in all types of settings. No way have I violated their privacy or any law (except perhaps the law of good art) and I certainly am in no way a creep or pervert.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

That is a great story Kevin! Thanks for sharing it!

 

Robert Frank Gabriel

9 Years Ago

If it's legal I take the pic. If it's not legal I don't. Simple as that. For the most part if folks are in public it's legal in America. As for ethics and morals, I leave opinions to others. I know what is legal and what is not. That's good enough for me, and keeps it simple.

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago

Back to my original post. In reading the article, it seems likely the fellow was acting in a poor and jerkish manner. The question is should the police and judicial response been so extreme? To me it doesn't sound like it had risen to that level or even close. So, the prosecution seems legally quite dangerous from a civil liberties point of view.

 

Bonita Applebum

9 Years Ago

women should not put it on display if they dont want it to be seen. I always wear shorts under my dress if I'm going to be active. I think the judge got it right here. We cannot police what people look at.. and it wont be long before tchnology is in place that allows people to record everything their eyes see. I think Google glass may be close alredy. So the onus is on women to cover up unless they expect to be seen...and yes..photographed too ::::::>

 

Kevin Callahan

9 Years Ago

This is a paraphrase of Oscar Wilde but I think it fits:

There are no moral or immoral works of art, only good and bad art. A work of art does not put forth views, views are for people.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

"it seems likely the fellow was acting in a poor and jerkish manner.''

I don't see a lot of argument that is saying he was not.

But there was no laws broken. Do we really want to turn things to into a police state just because there are some jerks out there? If we are going to start locking up people for being jerks you will need to build a jail the size of Texas to lock up just the Oakland Raider and San Francisco Giants fans.

The police had no business getting involved and the DA should have never prosecuted.

 

HW Kateley

9 Years Ago


@Floyd. Yes, we aren't far apart on this one. Although I don't really see a problem that the police questioned him, to me, it's after that it seems like it was taken way too far.

 

Joseph C Hinson

9 Years Ago

The police say he was acting suspicious. To some LEOs, just having a camera is suspicious enough. I'll give them the benefit of teh doubt in this case until I hear otherwise. It sounds like he was a real pervtographer. (A creep, not a criminal)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/voyeur-charges-dropped-against-upskirt-photographer-at-lincoln-memorial/2014/10/09/7dc90eac-4ff5-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

Perhaps such images can serve a cautionary purpose for society. When your teenager dresses inappropriately, you could take them to "people of Walmart" website and ask them what the consider the most outrageous shots that they can choose in 5 minutes of browsing. Then remind them that everything on the intertubes lives forever, and ask if they are sure they would like their next employer to view that photo before deciding if he/she should be hired.

Perhaps the "pants on the ground" crowd, and the "spandex giants" and others should consider what they look like to the public, and if they really wish to be categorized in this way. Of course, loud and proud groups, such as those who use their skin as a canvas for their ideas (or lack thereof) would only consider this a plus.

In general in the USA, if what is photographed is readily accessible to public view, it is protected free expression. After all, only unpopular expressions need protection. If you want freedom of expression, you must also allow it for others whom you might even feel are expressing (literally) reprehensible views.

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

i could say that again, but it's not necessary in this thread.

 

Floyd Snyder

9 Years Ago

Gregory, I am surprised that there has not been more outrage about the People of Walmart" webpage.

Has there ever even been any at all?

I wonder if they get releases from those people? Or what Wal Mart themselves think of have their customers made fun of in such a public display.

On the other had, I find it hard to believe that these people do not know what the look like when the step out their front door.

 

Kevin Callahan

9 Years Ago

Floyd, you have a good point. apparently if we (Americans) look at pretty women (in public) we are all perverts. But if we want to make fun of poor fat people, it is a laugh riot. This surely tells us something very uncomfortable about the current state of humanity.

 

This discussion is closed.