Victim Battles For 'Upskirting' to Be Made Sex Crime in Britain

[McTroll]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/vi...ritain-n792321

What I don't understand is why it hasn't been made one yet. I mean, taking pics of one's crotch without consent, given the obviously sensitive nature of the act, cannot be appropriate in any context.

[McTroll]

We've been over this in the other thread. If you don't want people taking pictures of your crotch it needs to be covered from all angles when you're in public.

"If you don't want your house to be robbed, lock the doors."

Sure, it's more secure, I agree 100%. But it doesn't make theft any more legal. You could also argue that home insurers won't pay if you leave your doors unlocked, but home insurance and law are two different things. One is a business and one draws the line in terms of legalese.

[Orby]

That whole practice just seemed perverted to begin with, I am surprised it took this long to do something about it.

We've been over this in the other thread. If you don't want people taking pictures of your crotch it needs to be covered from all angles when you're in public.

You know the lengths some of these photographers go to get crotch shots? Most are not gotten accidentally. Some go out of their way to get on their knees to get those shots, saying "women should do a better job of covering themselves" is a dumb excuse.

Even if they were caught accidentally, what excuse do they have for publishing them in the first place, "Hey I got a crotch shot, this is headlines, publish it people"

On the other side yes there are some dumb celebrities who who do it for media attention and expose themselves for any inch of recovering fame, and will probably abuse the claims when they see fit, there's no doubt that might happen.

But overall if you see photographers getting low shots that shouldn't be the case, especially when they have to publish them to begin with.

[Knolan]

"If you don't want your house to be robbed, lock the doors."

Sure, it's more secure, I agree 100%. But it doesn't make theft any more legal. You could also argue that home insurers won't pay if you leave your doors unlocked, but home insurance and law are two different things. One is a business and one draws the line in terms of legalese.

Sorry, but those are far different issues for it to become a valid equivalence... for starters you don't lose any property if someone take your picture, second you do have right on your property while you do not have image rights while in a public space.

[Noomz]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/vi...ritain-n792321

What I don't understand is why it hasn't been made one yet. I mean, taking pics of one's crotch without consent, given the obviously sensitive nature of the act, cannot be appropriate in any context.

I don't think it's become a big problem until now. But yeah this should be a crime.

[Deleted]

you dont see the face whats wrong with this pics ? maybe the girls are anxious of being photographed while on their period

[McTroll]

Sorry, but those are far different issues for it to become a valid equivalence... for starters you don't lose any property if someone take your picture, second you do have right on your property while you do not have image rights while in a public space.

Of course you don't lose any property, but you lose privacy, which you didn't renounce to by what you're wearing. Sorry, but someone wearing a skirt doesn't renounce to her right to privacy just because that doesn't fit your values.

And I'm sure that "image rights on a public space" law is superceded by public decency laws, which not only includes exhibitionism, but also includes these types of shots being taken.

And no, wearing a skirt is NOT exhibitionism. You don't see people getting arrested for that.

[Kapadons]

A crime ? Ok maybe. A sex crime? Hogwash.

You didn't touch them in anyway. Next staring at someone's tits or ass from outside of their clothes on the train for too long will be a sex crime.

[Moralgy]

We've been over this in the other thread. If you don't want people taking pictures of your crotch it needs to be covered from all angles when you're in public.

So basically duck tape your clothes to your skin at all times because we shouldn't make this extremely creepy and perverted practice illegal? If people taking upskirts are okay to you, then running a camera through someone's clothes while they aren't looking is legal as well. It is the exact same shit, just because one opening is smaller than the other doesn't make it any different.

I do wonder how many people in that previous thread that are against making upskirt shots illegal are anti-trans in various ways because of Protecting womenz!?!?!?!

[McTroll]

A crime ? Ok maybe. A sex crime? Hogwash.

You didn't touch them in anyway.

That's a fair compromise. It would be better than the whole pile of fuckall there is now.

[yetgdhfgh]

Iam quarter Scottish and i welcome this

I dont ever want anyone to see what is up my Kilt!!!

[Kuntantee]

A crime ? Ok maybe. A sex crime? Hogwash.

You didn't touch them in anyway. Next staring at someone's tits or ass from outside of their clothes on the train for too long will be a sex crime.

Considering it is the sexual parts that are being recorded without consent, I'd say it fits to the category of "sex crime" perfectly well. This kind of shit should not be tolerated.

[Underverse]

Yeah I don't get why it would be a sex crime. I mean, they're not naked. You're basically doing the equivalent of taking pics of someone's bulge. Actually come to think of it, the idea of making this a crime is kind of silly. Maybe it could be classified under harassment?

[Deleted]

you dont see the face whats wrong with this pics ? maybe the girls are anxious of being photographed while on their period

Classy.


It's not liked they were grabbed by the pussy, right?

[Kuntantee]

We've been over this in the other thread. If you don't want people taking pictures of your crotch it needs to be covered from all angles when you're in public.

If you don't wanna get raped, you should be in veil.

Sounds familiar?

[McTroll]

Yeah I don't get why it would be a sex crime. I mean, they're not naked. You're basically doing the equivalent of taking pics of someone's bulge. Actually come to think of it, the idea of making this a crime is kind of silly. Maybe it could be classified under harassment?

...harrassment... ...which in itself is a crime?

[Grimreaper]

What about cameltoes in tights? Shouldnt that be illegal to take pics of aswell? What about big bulges on males in tights?

[Underverse]

Considering it is the sexual parts that are being recorded without consent, I'd say it fits to the category of "sex crime" perfectly well. This kind of shit should not be tolerated.

No, you're taking pics of underwear. No sexual organs are being recorded. As for taking pictures of someone without their consent - is this a crime already? Or can you take pictures of random people in public?

- - - Updated - - -

...harrassment... ...which in itself is a crime?

Yeah, that's why I said maybe it could be classified under harassment.

[McTroll]

What about cameltoes in tights? Shouldnt that be illegal to take pics of aswell? What about big bulges on males in tights?

You forgot consent being a part of the equation there.

[Grimreaper]

...harrassment... ...which in itself is a crime?

Yes, but it's not sexual.