jenna_g Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Actually Eric I've thought about moving to Canada a few times. However since I don't have any special skills I would have to sneak across! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy freeland Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Well, I guess that's it. I'm no longer going to refer to anyone's posted images as 'sexy.' Not even yours eric, even though you're in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenna_g Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I guess you guys are going to have to start taking pictures of sexy men. Just makes sure they are at least 18! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Jenna, You don't need any special skills to be in Canada. Take it from me. I have lived in Victoria, Eric's neighborhood for quite sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I'm glad there are laws protecting a citizen's reasonable expectation to privacy in public places. At the same time I agree that the language of this law is arbitrary and dumb. Is that a Texas thing? I'll be avoiding Texas for the most part. Problem is they're taking over my country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenna_g Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Hi Vivek, Really? I was visiting the Canada Immigration site a few weeks ago and was under the impression that to gain citizenship you had to either have a special in-demand skill, or were marrying a Canadian, otherwise you can only get a short-term work visa. Plus I think you have to have enough money (which has to be verified) to sustain yourself for six months. I'm 0 for 3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Oh yeah. Minor details.. You need the paper proof to qualify for their *points* system. I was a poor grad student from India. Could have immigrated easily for Cdn $600 by filing the papers from Seattle, according to the policies at that time. I couldn't afford it :-) Really, I had no worthwhile skills at all (still don't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Everybody, come to Canada and escape the paranoid nonsense! You can marry who you want, say what you want, smoke what you want and photogrpah what you want. You can kip in my studio; it's in Gastown, you'll feel at home as refugees here in the downtown eastside believe me, and then sort out your paperwork. There so much work going on and all the baby boomers are retiring. Better hurry though, Vancouver was just voted the best city in the universe again. Come on up! Even for a visit, the offer stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 It (Vancouver and surroundings) is a great place live. Super! Natural! As advertised! All true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Not only friendly folks..<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 "If the picture is for the sexual gratification of <i>any</i> person?A lot of people are turned on by shoes. Some by gloves, hands, and I'm sure there's a fetish for every part of the body, and every article of clothing. So the guy is toast. It seems a very unfair law, but Texas is famous for that. Being an old Willie/Waylon fan & a lover of a lot of the music coming out of that state, I'd always fantasised about visiting it, but not any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Doesn't Texas - Tejas - means *friendly* ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Forgot to put the quotes after the word "person" above. S'far as that Canada stuff. One of my pet barroom theories: Canada is a Scandinavian Country and the US is a Latin American country. Because Canadians are so reasonable and tolerant, they can pass gay marriage legislation and semi-legalise pot, because nobody gets too out of control here. People keep their sexuality & "vices" to themselves; everyone is expected to be civil. Whereas Americans are Out There, in-your-face, emotional, limits pushers. It's also legal in Canada, for example for women to go topless in public. Has been for 10 years. If that were the case in America, you'd have bare breasts everywhere. City streets would sound like a demolition derby, and auto insurance rates would be astronomical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passin thru Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Canada... http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20051012010450408 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 "a citizen's reasonable expectation to privacy in public places" Um, Kent, I have some Earth shattering news for you. When you go out in public, its all like public and eveything. As in, you know, not private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 John, why the sarcasm? Save it for the LF... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy freeland Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 John Henneberger: Errr, no, John, in publicly accessible places such as bathrooms and changing rooms, in public hospitals, etc., etc., there is an expectation of a right to privacy. What was the point of that post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 The LF. That's a good one. Please allow me to back pedal. Actually I agree with views you presented here. As to the public issue, perhaps you mean to say that people have legitimate concerns about 'intrusions' they may encounter out in public. No one wants to be stalked or have creeps take pictures of their kids. Many find just having their picture taken at all to be objectionable. So I agree that the statute is too broad. It should have additional standards such as the conduct be menacing to the reasonable person or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathaniel_pearson Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Texas had a law prohibiting sex between mutually consenting adults in their own homes, too. Some state laws are ludicrous and even unconstitutional. I can think of some interesting dilemmas for the Texas Rangers: 1) Husband photographs deeply sleeping wife's bare breasts, prints picture out, and leaves on pillow while making coffee. Wife awakes, finds printed-out picture of otherwise unidentified breasts, and gets turned on...all per husband's dastardly plan. 2) Scantily clad young woman, unable to control salacious urges, furtively takes cellphone picture of neatly uniformed Texas Ranger while latter doggedly toughs out a grueling, horrible day of spring break beach patrol looking for camera-wielding pervs. 3) Former Texas governor, born to patrician Yankee family, furtively takes picture of cronelike mother carrying adorable -- and some blueblooded Texans mean adorable in the biblical sense, if y'all catch my drift -- lap dog named T-Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I guess the message is clear: Don't mess with Texas! Hopefully the outcome of this story will be reported...sometimes they loose steam and I never know how it all turned out. I suppose this guy was shooting digital. What if he had been shooting film? I guess the cops would take his film and develop it. If it had been me boy would I be ticked off. He should have asked if he was doing anything illegal and asked for a search warrent. Then again this is Texas so I guess anything is possible. Jena - are things really that bad in San Diego? I was toying with the idea of maybe headind down there from LA to photograph some of the Minute Men activities and some of the protests. I think for fun I may spend a afternoon photographing on Rodeo Dr. Why not, it's one of the worlds most famous streets and it just might be the thing to break me out of the rut I'm still kind of in. Besides it's such a tourist draw that I'll blend right in! In closing I just have to say that what happened in Texas I think can happen anywhere, even a liberal place like CA. The fact is that there are perverts with cameras out there and unfortunately this small number spoils it for the rest of us. It's just a fact of life I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 "Passin' Thru , oct 12, 2005; 09:27 p.m. Canada..." Yeah, isn't that awful? I can up with many links that shows Canada isn't perfect. Did you now we were the first country to attempt genocide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeseb Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 <i>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....</i> <p>Everyone getting worked up here must have been asleep in english class. What about that little conjunction AND at the end of line A? It specifies the INTERSECTION of the two clauses it joins (c.f. OR, which specifies a UNION of clauses, so that either one could be true and thus make the whole sentence true.) This means that both clauses joined by the conjunction have to be true for the whole to be true.</p> <p>Therefore as it reads, in order for photographing someone in public to be an offense, it must BOTH be nonconsensual AND be taken for the sexual gratification of any person. Either taking the photo without consent, or taking it for sexual gratification, but not both at the same time, would not constitute an offense as this is written. You can take all the nonconsensual public photos you want; and you can get off in what ever way you want from photos you take; but you can't take nonconsensual public photos for the purpose of bustin' your nut. <i>Capisce?</i> From an english-usage standpoint, this interpretation is incontrovertible. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there is more to it than should be obvious to a literate middle-schooler.</p> <p>Guess we need a dose of the facts, and an antidote against elevated dander, hereabouts.</p> <p>If this guy is some kind of whack job with a camera full of surreptitious panty shots or questionable kiddie stuff, then I hope he gets looked in to vigorously, as he's making it tougher for all of us legit photographers. We aren't going to morph into a stalinist dictatorship by asking the guy some pointed questions, folks. That slippery slope a lot of people mindlessly invoke in such situations is actually grooved to prevent hydroplaning. So let's take a breath and find out what is actually afoot down in Texas.</p> <p>And as for that racist comment about the white middle class enclave being more suspicious, paranoid, etc--generalizations are useless. Your own biases are showing with that sort of statement. Imagine the hue and cry if some doofus white guy had commented that "them [insert questionable term for nonwhite person of your choice] tend to be more hysterical and emotional over there in the poor section of town" !</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_conrad Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I doubt that John meant to suggest that a public place extended to bathrooms, changing rooms or the like. Nonetheless, I think requiring that a photographer's conduct be menacing is perhaps a bit too loose, more at stalking than invasion of privacy. <p> Consider similar law in good ol' liberal California (a misnomer, but a topic for another time in another forum): <blockquote> [California Penal Code]<br> [Title 15. Miscellaneous Crimes]<br> [Chapter 2. Of Other and Miscellaneous Offenses]<br> [§ 647 [Disorderly conduct] (k)]<br> <p> (2) Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. <p> (3) (A) Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person. </blockquote> <p> The problematic condition of "the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires" remains, but there are sufficient other conditions ("concealed," "secretly," and "reasonable expectation of privacy") that capricious (and possibly intentional) misapplication is far less likely. The general principle in the United States is that in a public place, expectation of privacy is minimal. I'll leave it to the legal folks to determine whether Texas can lawfully impose more restrictive conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenna_g Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 <i>And as for that racist comment about the white middle class enclave being more suspicious, paranoid, etc--generalizations are useless. Your own biases are showing with that sort of statement.</i><br><br> Geez some people are overreacting here. Actually Southlake is an upper middle class community and about 95% white. It's one of the whitest and wealthiest communities in the DFW area. The average home is appraised at $427,000 which is quite high by Texas standards. Compare that to Dallas proper which is 34.6% white and the average home is appraised at $89,000. Wealthier communities have a higher proportion of police/security per population just because they can afford it. Suspicious activity is more likely to be reported and investigated. I don't think it's a racist statement at all. A generalization perhaps, but racist? Good grief! The fact is most upper middle class folks are white. Most are conservative. Many move to communities like this because A) they can afford to, B) they are often further away from poor and lower middle income areas, and C) the neighborhoods are considered much safer.<br><br> So if I offended all of you white upper middle class guys, so sorry. You guys are always welcome in my hood where suspicious activity is the norm!<br><br> Lastly, I hope we find out more about this guy. If he's indeed a pervert, I hope he gets what he deserves, no matter what his background is. If not, shame on the Southlake police.<br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 The Texas Statute and the Cal Stat are about as similar as a BMW and a wagon. They both have wheels and carry things and thats about it. The Texas law doesn't define anything. Basically states any picture of anything with intent to arouse. The Cal stat spells out much more specifically as to what constitutes the violation. The difference? One is fairly specific, the other is totally vague. Who determines and how as to what constitutes an intention to sexually gratify another person. Under that law, Intent is difficult to prove as their is no objective standard. And what do they mean by sexual gratification?? If they think someone is going to wank to your photo??? Isn't vagueness grounds for declaring a law unconsitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now