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.)
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 9:04 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 9:15 PM
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 AMyeah 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 AMthe 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 9:04 PMTripp,
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 9:15 PM