9/19/2014 Texas court throws out ‘paternalistic’ ban on ‘upskirt’ photos http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/texas-court-throws-out-paternalistic-ban-on-upskirt-photos/ 1/7 A U.S. NEWS DON'T MISS STORIES. FOLLOW RAW STORY! Follow @rawstory Texas court throws out ‘paternalistic’ ban on ‘upskirt’ photos TRAVIS GETTYS 18 SEP 2014 1.4K Facebook Twitter More Photographer paparazzi (Shutterstock) Texas court threw out a law banning “upskirt” photos, finding the statute a “paternalistic” violation of free speech guarantees. SHARES Rhiannon Poole, Mike Hersh and 289,395 others like this. Like Se NEWS OPINION MORE
7
Embed
18 SEP 2014 1 - Male Violence Texas court throws out ‘paternalistic’ ban on ‘upskirt’ photos ... Photographer paparazzi ... “paternalistic” violation of free speech ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
9/19/2014 Texas court throws out ‘paternalistic’ ban on ‘upskirt’ photos
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 8-1 that photos are “inherentlyexpressive” – just like paintings, films, and books – and are protected by the FirstAmendment, reported the Houston Chronicle.
“The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush,” Presiding JudgeSharon Keller wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling by the state’s highest criminal courtupheld a previous decision by the San Antonio-based 4th Court of Appeals.
Ronald Thompson appealed the constitutionality ofthe law after he was charged in 2011 with 26counts of improper photography after takingunderwater pictures of children swimming at awater park.
He challenged the law before his trial began, arguing that the statute could beused to jail street photographers, entertainment journalists, pep rally attendees,and “even the harmless eccentric.”
The Bexar County District Attorney’s Office argued that surreptitiously taken photoswere beyond First Amendment protections because the law required illegal intentto be proven, but the court disagreed.
“Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexualthoughts seems to be the sort of ‘paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’smind’ that the First Amendment was designed to guard against,” Keller wrote.
A First Amendment law expert said the court ruled correctly, saying “it’s hard to seehow you could make taking a picture a crime.”
“To think that it’s unlawful to look at a little girl in a swimsuit, when you havelascivious thoughts, in public, and you did not do anything to that child?” said PeterLinzer, a University of Houston Law Center constitutional law professor. “Thatcannot be made a crime in the United States. The fact that some people might findthat very offensive doesn’t change anything.”
“You can’t prevent someone in public from looking at you and having darkthoughts,” Linzer said.
1.4K Facebook Twitter More
SHARES
From The Web by TaboolaSponsored Links
15 Jokes We TOTALLY Missed In Beloved Films From Our YouthRefinery29
Please Don't Retire At 62. Here's Why.The Motley Fool