quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

A woman can't "expect" a little decorum when she gets out of a car, why would she expect it when there's a door with a keyhole in it? See my point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
sorry, Vendeval...but this slave is guilty of it...especially at Folsom!!!  however, she's hardly an internet nudity virgin...

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
....no.

Probably because your 'point' is specious.

Being on the other side of a locked door is being in a wholly private space.

Getting out of a car to go to a club is leaving a semi-private space and moving into a public one.

quote:

But both are still privacy violations. And both *are* against the law, supposedly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

But both are still privacy violations. And both *are* against the law, supposedly.

You don't have the right to privacy in a public place; that was ruled on in the courts years and years ago. I can walk up down the street taking pictures of whomever or whatever I want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
sorry, Vendeval...but this slave is guilty of it...especially at Folsom!!!  however, she's hardly an internet nudity virgin...

Be that as it may, if you'd gotten out of the car to look down and see a guy laying on the ground and shooting up your skirt, I highly doubt Merc would be....pleased.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
sorry, Vendeval...but this slave is guilty of it...especially at Folsom!!!  however, she's hardly an internet nudity virgin...

Be that as it may, if you'd gotten out of the car to look down and see a guy laying on the ground and shooting up your skirt, I highly doubt Merc would be....pleased.

only because you don't know Him.

quote:

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."

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

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."

Note the word "secretly." The papparazzi weren't filming her secretly when she got out of that car. She has cameras in her face all the time. Also, note the phrase "intent to arouse, appeal to, gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person....." You have to prove intent that the photographer was doing it for his own sexual gratification. Sorry, doesn't apply in the example you gave.

Well hello there beth,

Is that a freshly pressed birthday suit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

...But personally, I know no women who go out in public without underwear while wearing short skirts or dresses knowing that cameras will be present....

 


sorry, Vendeval...but this slave is guilty of it...especially at Folsom!!!  however, she's hardly an internet nudity virgin...

quote:

And once again, it's exactly that way of thinking that leads the photographers to get more and more daring. No one wants to take a stand until they're truly shocked or outraged.

quote:

You let it slide and let it slide and let it slide.....those who go down that 'slide' just keep going further and further and further. And voila....keyhole porno

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
What way of thinking? The law is the law. Laws can't be used broadly; if the behavior isn't specifically outlawed by the law, you can't prosecute someone for it. Papparazzi do go out of their way to get photographs; it's how they make their living. I agree that a lot of them are complete douchebags, but unless they violate the law, they have a right to take their photographs.

It's nothing new. Yellow journalism, fluff, and gossip have been with humanity for a long time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
Slippery slope argument.

quote:

Oh wait...they *did* show Britney with no underwear on, didn't they? Nevermind that the guy had to get at GROUND LEVEL right where the car door opened in order to get the shot. But that's ok, right? Just tabloid stuff...right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt
Ummm.. could you be more specific? I did a search and came up with a crapload of such "crotch shots" of Britney. Which one are you referring to? BTW, one thing I noticed in the pics of her is that she is usually accompanied by at least one guy, possibly a bodyguard. Did said guy(s) or anyone else NOT else notice some dude laying on the ground (as per a later post you made) with a camera? Did she not see this guy laying on the ground when she opened the door? I really don't see the situation as being the same as someone being unknowingly photographed either in their home or in a hotel room. Male or female, that is well beyond the pale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt
As an aside, Loki, your first 2 posts and part of the third were rather all about "but no one cares if it happens to a MAN". LC was quite correct in citing the case of Max Mosely in response.
I really don't blame those who see your later posts as backpeddaling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixidustpet
its the expectation of privacy.

britney spears KNOWS that as a "celebrity", there are going to be people taking photos of whatever she is (or isnt) wearing.  and her mama should have showed her YEARS ago how to get in and out of a car gracefully.

This is exactly the mindset that led to the keyhole video. A woman can't "expect" a little decorum when she gets out of a car, why would she expect it when there's a door with a keyhole in it? See my point? It's the increasing lengths to which so-called journalists will go to get the next big 'thing' in the media. Women celebrities can't sunbathe in their own fucking back yard without tabloid freaks in the trees across the street. This incident is the next logical (albeit highly illegal) step.

Why can someone expect privacy in a hotel room when they can't expect it in their own home?

Edited because apparently when typing fast, I don't know how to spell 'sunbathe.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixidustpet
its not the same at all.

and if you think that through, you know it.  if there is a tree on the other side of the wall where i am sunbathing, you betcha there is always that offchance that someone is going to make a fool of himself climbing it....no matter how "private" we think our yard is.

if i am using a tanning bed *in my own home, with the doors and windows shut*, i have an expectation that when i turn my head, there will be no one there.  there *are* laws about peeping toms, you know (no matter their gender).

there is a difference between what one does on the street (getting out of a vehicle ungracefully and flashing one's undergarments or lack thereof) and being behind a locked door and the curtains drawn to keep privacy.

they arent the same *at all*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45


If you read my comments more carefully, you'll see that I already stipulate that they aren't the "same." However it *is* an unfortunate and unsettling trend that could have been thwarted had a stand been taken on one of the previous, "lesser" incidents. The more society shrugs its shoulders, the more daring the perpetrators will get.