"What unites creepshots [on Reddit], the Middleton photographs, the revenge porn websites," says Franks, "is that they all feature the same fetishisation of non-consensual sexual activity with women who either you don't have any access to, or have been denied future access to. And it's really this product of rage and entitlement"
I don't have time for a full response right now, but in short, the courts have ruled that photography is covered by the US Constitution (specifically the first amendment - freedom of expression) therefore moral judgements are not enforceable. Secondly, anything viewable in public is exactly that - public. The two combined mean its fully protected as speech, as long as there is an actual audience. (not my opinion - stated explicitly by the courts). The only exception so far is upskirt photos which are outlawed in a handful of states. That hasn't been tested in federal court yet. (link)Indeed, in the Guardian article's comments section there are calls of hypocrisy: what about Tube Crush (discussed previously on MeFi) and Macho i Kollektivtrafiken; why the double standards between men and women?
If you are standing on public property you are legally allowed to photograph anyone or anything you like, even if your subject is on private property or is a private building.
« Older In 1975, composer/drummer Chip Davis, bass player ... | Roller Coaster Tycoon in real ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments