All photographers guilty of felony
Oct. 17th, 2005 02:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
errantemberA friend of mine called my attention to the following Texas law of which everyone should be aware that basically implies that anyone who takes a picture of someone without their permission where the picture *might* be considered sexually motivated (even in public) could be arrested and charged with a felony.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000021.00.htm#21.15.00
We'll note it's conveniently on the same page as the law stating that homosexual sex acts are still illegal in the great state of Texas.
Here's the text for the incredibly lazy:
ยง 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL
RECORDING. (a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning
assigned by Section 43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person; or
(2) knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
So basically the police can arrest anyone they don't want taking a picture on the pretext the content might be "intended to arouse" someone.
This comes at a very odd time for me, as I'm currently reading a book ("Why Does He Do That, Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men" by Lundy Bancroft) recommended to me by someone who works with abused women, and so I'm very focused on the idea that certain acts that might normally not be considered violent or coercive can be in certain contexts. This law was probably created specifically with that kind of mindset. However, this incredibly vague law not only steps way over the line, but can't possibly, in any context I'm aware of, be constitutional. Not only that, but it implies that capturing any feeling of enjoyment of other people's sexuality in public without their express consent is felony. I think this is a total crock. There are already laws on the books that protect people against a recognizable image of them being used for commercial purposes without their consent, and I support that idea. Nobody wants an image of themselves crying at their mother's funeral to be pasted all over someone's anti-depressant ad. There are also laws to protect people (especially children) from strangers who repeatedly behave in a disturbing or threatening manner, which could apply to a photographic stalker situation or pedophile. However, the general understanding of the 1st amendment rights of photographers, long supported by precedent, is that the act of taking someone's picture in public without their permission is legal. The distribution of that picture is a different story, for good reason, but taking the picture is legal. If I take a picture in public without someone's permission and that picture never leaves my hard drive, or is only posted in a format that makes it reasonably impossible to recognize the subject, I feel it should be legal. There is no victim here, and I don't feel the vague uneasiness that "someone, somewhere might be taking a perv picture of me" justifies the potentially disastrous consequences this law implies.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000021.00.htm#21.15.00
We'll note it's conveniently on the same page as the law stating that homosexual sex acts are still illegal in the great state of Texas.
Here's the text for the incredibly lazy:
ยง 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL
RECORDING. (a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning
assigned by Section 43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person; or
(2) knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
So basically the police can arrest anyone they don't want taking a picture on the pretext the content might be "intended to arouse" someone.
This comes at a very odd time for me, as I'm currently reading a book ("Why Does He Do That, Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men" by Lundy Bancroft) recommended to me by someone who works with abused women, and so I'm very focused on the idea that certain acts that might normally not be considered violent or coercive can be in certain contexts. This law was probably created specifically with that kind of mindset. However, this incredibly vague law not only steps way over the line, but can't possibly, in any context I'm aware of, be constitutional. Not only that, but it implies that capturing any feeling of enjoyment of other people's sexuality in public without their express consent is felony. I think this is a total crock. There are already laws on the books that protect people against a recognizable image of them being used for commercial purposes without their consent, and I support that idea. Nobody wants an image of themselves crying at their mother's funeral to be pasted all over someone's anti-depressant ad. There are also laws to protect people (especially children) from strangers who repeatedly behave in a disturbing or threatening manner, which could apply to a photographic stalker situation or pedophile. However, the general understanding of the 1st amendment rights of photographers, long supported by precedent, is that the act of taking someone's picture in public without their permission is legal. The distribution of that picture is a different story, for good reason, but taking the picture is legal. If I take a picture in public without someone's permission and that picture never leaves my hard drive, or is only posted in a format that makes it reasonably impossible to recognize the subject, I feel it should be legal. There is no victim here, and I don't feel the vague uneasiness that "someone, somewhere might be taking a perv picture of me" justifies the potentially disastrous consequences this law implies.
