It's legal to take "upskirt" photos in Wisconsin

[Scuba]

from my email ...

This year, in my beloved state of Wisconsin, a man was arrested for secretly recording up the skirts of more than 300 unsuspecting women. This act of photographing women’s body parts without their consent is actually common enough that it has a name: “upskirting”.

Despite the silly word, it’s no laughing matter. Victims of this act experience similar effects as those of other sexual assaults, namely fear, guilt, and shame. Wisconsin doesn’t have any laws on the books to punish upskirting. Perpetrators have been given the very petty charges of disorderly conduct, invasion of privacy, and sometimes nothing at all -- if the victim is wearing the “right” kind of undergarment when the photo is taken, the photo is considered perfectly legal under current state statutes.

This is obviously absurd and must be changed. A bipartisan bill to address this issue recently passed the Wisconsin State Assembly, but it has stalled in the Senate. The bill would create a new charge and punishment for upskirting, one that fits the crime.

Please join me in calling on Wisconsin state senators to schedule and pass AB8-SB4. Upskirting goes far beyond invading privacy, and should be treated with the gravity of other sexual assaults. It is non-consensual, unwanted sexual misconduct, and should be punished as such by law enforcement and prosecutors.

[CrispyQ]

1. Good grief! Who are the cretins who do this

& who are the assholes who won't pass legislation against this? Arghh!!!

[HassleCat]

2. The problem is where to draw the line

If I take a picture of a woman from a low angle, am I upskirting? What if she's wearing a long dress? Pants? Short skirt? What about a law to protect women against cleavage pictures? Foot fetish pictures? Bikini photos at the beach? Tight sweaters? All these things fall under the description "...non-consensual, unwanted sexual misconduct..."

[Glassunion]

5. What!?

It's a pretty simple concept that a woman should have an expectation of privacy under any garment that she chooses to wear.

If a woman chooses to expose her cleavage, then she chooses to have it visible. If she chooses to wear a skirt or a dress, everything underneath should be off limits.

[HassleCat]

7. Why one and not the other?

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Isn't The Answer Intuitively Obvious?

Because it's a matter of choice as to what shows and what doesn't and it's not up to anyone else to decide that more should be exposed other the person wearing the clothes. Not even gender specific.

Just incredible simple and straightforward.

[HassleCat]

11. Now I'm really confused!

So, if take a low angle photo of a woman wearing a short dress, that's wrong. If I take a high angle photo of a woman wearing a low cut top, that's OK. I hope everyone realizes both are variations on the same sort of perversion, and both photographers are going to run home and do the same thing while looking at the photos.

[Glassunion]

15. I'm struggling to figure out why you don't get this.

It all boils down to the choice of the person, not the one taking a photograph.

If a person decides to wear a dress or a skirt, they have chosen to cover up parts of their body. Those parts, should be off limits, as the person has specifically chosen to cover them. They have in my opinion an expectation of privacy in regards to those parts.

If a person chooses to wear something low cut, and expose their cleavage, they have made the decision to (for lack of a better term) make those parts public. So they have made the choice in that regard.

It is not up to the photographer to decide.

[HassleCat]

16. I'm sorry, but your explanation makes no sense at all, at least not to me.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but you seem to be saying a woman has an expectation of privacy only if she chooses "appropriate" clothing.

[Glassunion]

17. That is nothing like what I am saying.

I am saying that any person has an expectation of privacy under any article of clothing that they wear.

[HassleCat]

21. That seems reasonable

And how do we write a law that reflects that?

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Apparently I Was Wrong

And here i thought it was obvious that the person being photographed gets to decide which body parts show. You're proving it's not as obvious as i think it clearly should be.

[Nye Bevan]

12. You draw the line at parts of your body that you reasonably expect to be hidden.

Someone on the beach in a bathing suit cannot reasonably expect their upper thighs to be hidden. But a woman wearing a skirt has a more than reasonabld expectation that someone will not stick a camera up there.

[HassleCat]

13. The reasonable person standard

That's probably what it comes down to. Just remember the wrangling over "community standards" regarding pornography, zoning of porn shops and adult book stores, etc. Yes, we can have a law that prohibits upskirt photos, but it will get batted back and forth in the courts, and it might turn out to be nearly unenforceable. We already have stalking laws, and those may be adequate to address the problem. I don't know, but I do know stalking laws were used to prosecute perverts who took photos of one particular woman or a specific group of women.

[bettyellen]

18. Stalking is repetitive, isn't it? Upskirters victimize many women, usually just once each.

I think it has more to do with the methods involved, using tech for a serious invasion of privacy.

[Sherman A1]

3. Another case of technology

out ahead of policies and laws as it most likely always will be. That said I believe this to be an invasion of privacy at the very, very least and certainly sexual in nature. There should be a means to come to some legal policy to protect girls and women from this type of activity.

[Glassunion]

4. Remember, there is no war on women.

[Orrex]

6. I believe that this has been defended on 1st amendment grounds

I'm not sure of the court case, and I'm reluctant to search for "upskirt pictures" from my work computer, but believe some dubious ruling about "reasonable expectation of privacy" has already been handed down in at least one jurisdiction.

Creeptacular.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Great Word At The End, Orrex

The whole idea seems so junior high "tee hee" i can't believe it's a serious news story.

[prayin4rain]

10. Signed. I'm so sick of entitled feeling perverts. n/t

[WestCoastLib]

14. Why do people keep post lies as subjects?

From the very content of the email it says that perps are being punished for minor crimes over this, so in what way is it "legal"?

All this is saying is that there is no specific law targeting this one act, so the conduct needs to be prosecuted under other related laws.

That's true for tons of things and will always be true.

[One_Life_To_Give]

19. MA Took 2 days to make it illegal last year

In March 2014 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled it was legal. Took our Legislature only two days to put a Bill banning it onto the Governors desk. I guess it's Wisconsin's turn to see if they can do better.