Sure, taking pictures of someone without his/her consent--especially if the photo ends up somewhere on the internet--is bad behavior and should be punished. (To me, it doesn't matter so much if the photo has a sexual nature, but it does matter that consent was neither asked nor granted; but I do understand most people in our civilization would disagree and see the sexual nature of the photo as making it all much worse.)

On the other hand, I wonder if the punishment--three apparently serious charges--isn't a bit exaggerated. What will happen to him, if condemned? And in what way does this correspond to the (low? mild?) seriousness of the offense?

I'm not trying to defend any anti- or pro- points here; I'm just sincerely curious.

In fact, walk around and record your whole life and everything that penetrates the dome of irritation is a crime. I would also walk around with a thermal scanner and a voice stress analyzer to catch the liars and letches too.

"sure, taking pictures of someone without his/her consent--especially if the photo ends up somewhere on the internet"

So hollaback is full of women behaving badly?

and (the most likely scenario) posts it on the internet for all of his fellow circle jerkers to get off on... how is that not a violation?

:) got beat to the punch- amen okidokithen!

1. it's my body, if anyone's posting a photo of me w/o my permission, that's illegal- hell, if i take a picture of a butterfly and someone uses it w/o my permission that isn't legal either

2. I need to be able to have veto power over whether or not my sexual bits get put on display- that's not just common courtesy, I think that's a legal issue too

3. If you are making porn off my body (which no one would these days- whoo-ooh, let's hear it for old age and a thick layer of fat!!) I should get paid, otherwise you are not just stealing my image, you are stealing money from me

i better protect myself by taking an unauthorised picture of him and put it on the internet.

I believe someone just stole something from me... i better steal something from them to get even!

Eye for an eye renegade justice!

The next guy who wants to take a skirt shot may think twice about it now that this dude's got the book thrown at him.

Your encouraging behavior improves civic orderliness and State control of miscreants in the population.

Because of you, a dangerous criminal is behind bars, his life destroyed.

Our Leader approves.

other than the fact that his camera was held under her skirt, & someone else saw him taking shots??

His name is Aaron Olivieri btw, he's 36, my age! Can we get his photo up on Broadsheet? any pics of his cock or ass out there? I'd love to spread them around my school just for the hell of it! I've always thought that sounded like it would be fun. Hey you know, according to the guys here we need to shake off this victim mentality. How about being the spreaders this time and not the spread? He's got to take a dump sometime...get your cameras out girls. Hey, it's freedom of expression isn't it? Don't my first amendment rights cover making random porn of strangers? but I thought they did *shocked look*...

The law is not ambiguous. If you are in a public place, people have the right to take pictures of you. If they want to make money off that picture, you have to sign a release.

However, even in a public place, people still have a right to privacy. An under-the-skirt show violates the right to privacy, and thus is illegal.

I applaud the woman for taking concrete action against this guy. The question is, how do they prove he did take the picture? The word of an untraceable stranger is not sufficient. I guess they must have had sufficient cause to look at the pictures on his cell phone.

She also worked hard to punish men who attacked and raped her.

Another upstanding FemCitizen.

If they find a picture on his phone, can they then check his computer at work and home and see if he has routinely done this and posted them to sites? If he does do it regularly- can they get him for each separate woman he's photographed and put up?

"Yet, personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In writing for the Court in the case of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1964), Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch." It is not, however, unconstitutional for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If he just has them for his private use at home would it still be illegal (no law background here at all)? or just if he puts them up on the internet? Is the internet considered 'mailing'?

It isn't against the law to take photos of people on the street. Of course it is polite to ask permission for closeups, but you can publish the photo without permission because when we are in a public place we carry with us the assumption that we will be observed.

On the other hand, it is against the law to come up to my house in the evening and take photos of me through the window without my knowledge. This is because I have a right to assume that within my home I enjoy privacy.

Also, think of it this way. When you go to the bathroom in a public place, you are not expecting to be observed on the toilet when the stall door is closed. You have an expectation of privacy. It is against the law to film you when you have this expectation of privacy.

When a woman puts on a skirt, her assumption is generally that she will be viewed at eye level. If she sees a man lying in the street trying to look up women's skirts, she can avoid going near him. Upskirters, obtain their photos by subterfuge, often even using long-handled devices to place their cameras lower than women's skirts to take photos of what is assumed to be private. That is why what they are doing is against the law.

People who take and enjoy these photos aren't doing it because they cannot look at photos taken of naked women with their legs voluntarily spread. Those can be had in certain men's magazines and all over the internet. Instead, people who enjoy those photos specifically like the idea of women being fooled and used.

You sometimes have the same motivation in rape. Sex can usually be had, for a price but still obtainable. Why then do those men with the means to wine and dine or to just pay a prostitute resort to rape? It isn't logical to say that they merely desire sex. Instead, they desire the stalking, the power, and the exploitation that comes from sex not voluntarily given.

Men who do these sorts of things harbor a great deal of anger towards women or a great deal of fear of women.

Over and over people misunderstand sex crimes. They are never just about sex.