THOMAS F. BERTONNEAU writes:

According to liberal discourse, one in four college coeds will become victims of sexual aggression during their four-year matriculation. What campus codes call sexual harassment, a term that feminist misandry has rendered entirely subjective, is so terrible and so totally male that college men accused of the infraction find themselves in the condition of being presumptively guilty; furthermore, campus policy systematically deprives them of due process. Feminists, good liberals all, routinely deplore the sexually demeaning representations of women in popular culture. But a liberal judge in Texas has said that a law criminalizing “upskirt” photographs” snapped by perverts with miniature cameras deprives the accused of their constitutional protections to free speech.

According to the Houston Chronicle article: “The state’s highest criminal court on Wednesday tossed out part of a Texas law banning ‘improper photography or visual recording’ – surreptitious images acquired in public for sexual gratification, often called ‘upskirting’ or ‘downblousing’ – as a violation of federal free-speech rights and an improper restriction on a person’s right to individual thoughts.” The presiding judge in the trial, Sharon Keller, is quoted as saying, “The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush… A person’s purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.”

Keller is a Republican.  According to the Wikipedia biography, a friend of Keller describes her as “extremely religious… [S]he believes strongly that God is on her side.”  Keller has been prosecuted for judicial misconduct, but was not removed from the bench.

It is another sign of how warped our world has become.

Laura writes:

It truly is mind-boggling. On the one hand we have draconian regulation of sexual assault on campus and on the other hand, we have total deregulation of pornography, which increases the likelihood of sexual assault.

There are those who financially benefit from these seeming contradictions.

— Comments —

Texanne writes:

Judge Keller:

“The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush… A person’s purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.”

If a photographer’s right to create “upskirt” photos is protected by the Constitution, can we assume that a professional photographer may be forced to accept such an artistic assignment, even if engaging in such activity violates his conscience?

Laura writes:

I don’t see how someone could be forced to do such an assignment. It’s not quite the same thing as forcing bakers to make cakes for same-sex “weddings.”

Dr. Bertonneau writes:

Texanne makes a good point worth following up.  She cites Judge Keller’s statement that, “The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush.”  A pen and paintbrush, and a canvas, are the painter’s tools.  Let us imagine a painter taking his easel to the public square and then aggressively and repeatedly looking up girls’ dresses or down their blouses, after which he paints the images he has glimpsed on his canvass.  Can he then invoke Judge Keller’s opinion, describing his activity as “political expression”?  What has he “expressed.”  What did the photographer, vindicated by Judge Keller “express”?  In fact, photography is not expression; it is impression, about which, as a glance at the First Amendment tells me, the Constitution says absolutely nothing.  It might be expression when the photographer exhibits his work, but this still ignores the right of women not to have men staring up their skirts or down their blouses and photographing their sexual characteristics.  How does Judge Keller square that aspect of the problem with her judgment?  She cannot square it.  It is an insane judgment.

Laura writes:

It is insane. But it is unlikely that anyone will be forced to take photos or paint pictures of women.

Forta Leza writes:

Sorry to blame the victim, so to speak, but most of these activities would not take place if girls would dress modestly.  If a girl is wearing a skirt long enough to cover her knees, it’s going to be difficult or impossible for someone to take an “up the skirt” photo of her.  The problem comes in with more modern clothing which is designed to titillate by coming very close to exposing the girl’s bra and panties.  Look, it’s wrong to take these kinds of photographs but at the same time it’s a bit hypocritical to claim an invasion of privacy under these circumstances.

Please follow and like us: