Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I have a question for people who wish to think about the 1st amendment and anti-voyeurism laws such as those in Washinton state.
A number of years ago, there were one or two fellow who were convicted of voyeurism in Washington state because they had taken some upskirt photos of gals. They then appealed and said that the existing law did not criminalize photos taken in public. The Wash state Supreme court sided with them and then the legislature changed the law. The newer law, in Wash state, as of about 2003, forbids taking photos of underwear or a intimate body part, even in public, if the wearer/person being photographed has an expectation of privacy and if the photo is taken for a sexual purpose.
It seems to me as if the law would tend to cut into a broad swath of what should be constitutionally protected. I do not mean the photos which are done by a fellow positioning his cell phone on the ground while tying his shoe. I mean the following:
photos of Kate Middleton's butt or panties such as have been in the news for the last few years, when wind or circumstances caused her skirt to be lifted;
photos of panties or butt of a cheerleader while she is being thrown into the air;
photos of Janet Jackson's breast after her wardrobe malfunction;
photos of panties and/or crotch of dozens of celebrities taken every week in California when Lindsay Lohan or Katy Perry or a dozen other female celebrities get out of a car . . .
photos of Marilyn Monroe's underwear when she walked over an air vent . . .
It seems to me as if all of these types of photos, all of which are commonly, generally accepted as legitimate expressions of art and photography could easily be criminalized by statutes identical or similar to the one in Washington state, and that all it takes is the mere assertion that such photos have a sexual intent or purpose and it would chill or destroy meaningful and interesting photos of art.
Is there a constitutional problem here? It seems to me as if there is.