Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures
 

Judges strike down part of statute, saying ?inherently expressive? medium of photography is part of right to free speech

A court has upheld the constitutional right of Texans to photograph strangers as an essential component of freedom of speech - even if those images should happen to be surreptitious ?upskirt? pictures of women taken for the purposes of sexual gratification.

Criticising an anti-?creepshot? law as a ?paternalistic? intrusion on a person?s right to be aroused, the Texas court of criminal appeals struck down part of the state?s ?improper photography or visual recording? statute which banned photographing, broadcasting or transmitting a visual image of another person without the other?s consent and with the intention to ?arouse or gratify ? sexual desire?.

The case stemmed from the arrest of a man in his early 50s named Ronald Thompson who was stopped in 2011 at Sea World in San Antonio after parents reported him swimming with and taking pictures of children aged 3-11. The local district attorney?s office said that he tried to delete the photographs before his camera was seized and a police examination of it revealed 73 images of children in swimsuits ?with most of the photographs targeting the children?s breast and buttocks areas?.

Prosecuting lawyers argued that the constitutional right to free speech, which includes taking public photographs, should not be a factor because photography is essentially a technical recording process and that attempted lawbreakers should not be able to hide behind free-speech protections.

Continued Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures | US news | The Guardian

sounds good...but how do you know the age of someone if you are taking them in public like that? I bet a bunch of people are about to get hit down there.
Sure you have the right, but how old is the person in the picture?

Oh she is 14...guess what

Talk about misleading headline. Was about to ask how Libertarians could support this until I saw this blurb:
The appeals judges appeared to agree, stating that although “upskirt” type-images are intolerable invasions of privacy, the wording of the law is too broad.