September 22, 2004
new thesis woe
well bolas, here go your thoughts on my thesis as porn.
from this article:
"Calling video voyeurism the new frontier of stalking, the House on Tuesday approved legislation to make it a crime to secretly photograph or videotape people, often for lascivious purposes.
Under the legislation passed by voice vote, video voyeurism on federal lands would be punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both.
The bill would make it a crime to videotape or photograph the naked or underwear-covered private parts of a person without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."
anyone have any thoughts on this?
i was worried til i read that last paragraph. even so though, seems worryingly vagueish.
Comments
actually, this isn't such a terrible idea -- I think it shouldn't have to be a law, but it's creepy going down to south beach or something and seeing these sketchy dudes combing the beach with a vid camera catching footage of chicks (with, or without sometimes) bathing suits. I guess I just can't believe anyone would do this based on their own personal ethics --
but at least it didn't make photographing people w/o consent in general illegal...
Posted by: will at September 22, 2004 11:44 AM
yeah thats what i was worried about when i first read it.
and it doesnt sound like itll outlaw those guys - more like locker rooms, dressing rooms, stuff like that.
im not saying its a bad idea, but the lines between public and private are about to get tested in a very real way. (perhaps even what constitutes a 'hidden' camera.)
Posted by: tripp at September 22, 2004 11:52 AM
the operative word to me seems to be "secretly." what determines a secret taping? obviously photographing people in dressing rooms, but i wonder if this is aimed at folks who go to miami and new orleans to film women (and men) for compilation reels like "girls gone wild."
i don't know that they will be unsuccessful in stopping this given that anything that can be viewed from a street passerby would fall under "fair use."
it's also strange that they say it will be a crime if the material is used for lascivious purposes. i'm curious to see who gets prosecuted and what (and who more importantly) will be determined lascivious.
sounds like it's about time for another obscenity battle ... again.
Posted by: ashley at September 23, 2004 09:04 PM
Tripp,
Maybe now you'll stop! Like Will said "... at least it didn't make photographing people w/o consent in general illegal..."
P.S. thanks for the HL 2 slap, the entry has since been deleted, I just dug up the news; hey here is an idea, post it next time, so stragglers like me won't play the fool.
Posted by: SEDinehart at September 24, 2004 09:15 PM
