Take pics of women in public places. Use pics to masturbate at home. Go to jail.

[tuna on toast]

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/06/metairie_man_booked_with_100_c.html

A Metairie man was held under $2.5 million bond Thursday on charges of taking 100 photographs of women and girls in public places then using the images at home for masturbation. The photos taken by Michael Rodriguez, 48, at local shopping centers and parks were not pornographic in nature. But because he took them without the subjects' consent and admittedly used them for a "lewd or lascivious purpose," he ran afoul of Louisiana's video voyeurism law, said Col. John Fortunato, spokesman for the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office.

He's a creep, but I don't see why that should be illegal.

If you take a picture of a woman at the beach without her consent and use it to masturbate at home, it's illegal. But if that same picture was posted on Facebook by the woman, it's legal to use it to masturbate. Huh?

 

[SerArthurDayne]

2.5mn? The fuck?

 

[Rokam]

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/06/metairie_man_booked_with_100_c.html



He's a creep, but I don't see why that should be illegal.

If you take a picture of a woman at the beach without her consent and use it to masturbate at home, it's illegal. But if that same picture was posted on Facebook by the woman, it's legal to use it to masturbate. Huh?

Nevermind, ability to read laws fails me.

 

[coldvein]

i agree OP, that should be totally legal.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

How did they find out he was jerking off to the pictures?

 

[TUSR]

Gaf held under 2.5 million bond.

Rodriguez denied any physical contact with any of the women and children in his pictures.

ohhhhhh

 

[James Woods]

Holy shit that is creepy as fucking hell and should be illegal.

I jerk off to facebook pics though. It's also creepy as hell but there is definitely a line being crossed. You need consent to take her picture. You DON'T need it to view her picture.

 

[Clydefrog]

what about mental pictures?

 

[gutshot]

It's all about consent. If she posts the picture online for public access, she has given consent for anyone to be able to view that photo. If you snap pictures of her and she doesn't know about it, she hasn't given consent.

 

[spiderman123]

He's a creep, but I don't see why that should be illegal.

If you take a picture of a woman at the beach without her consent and use it to masturbate at home, it's illegal. But if that same picture was posted on Facebook by the woman, it's legal to use it to masturbate. Huh?

No consent

 

[Beelzeboss]

what about mental pictures?

that's fine until mind reading becomes a thing.

 

[SerArthurDayne]

Dumb law. You consent to be in public, and therefore lose a lot of your privacy rights.

 

[MechDX]

Just masterbate to Facebook!

Problem solved.

 

[Verdre]

Actually, isn't it perfectly legal to take someone's picture without their consent so long as it's in a public space where there's no expectation of privacy?

It sounds like the thing that made this illegal was him masturbating to the pictures.

 

[Wazzim]

How did they find out he was jerking off to the pictures?

Well..

 

[Devolution]

OP and some others in the thread might want to learn the definition of consent.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Holy shit that is creepy as fucking hell and should be illegal.

I jerk off to facebook pics though. It's also creepy as hell but there is definitely a line being crossed. You need consent to take her picture. You DON'T need it to view her picture.

That's more legal but just as perverted.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Dumb law. You consent to be in public, and therefore lose a lot of your privacy rights.

This also puts a huge question mark on the legality of what paparazzi do for a living.

 

[Rentahamster]

How did they find out he was jerking off to the pictures?

He admitted to it. Dude doesn't know when to just shut the fuck up.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

 

[James Woods]

That's more legal but just as perverted.

Don't care, brah.

 

[A Pretty Panda]

How did they find out he was jerking off to the pictures?

"After noticing an unusual number of images in Rodriguez's phone of women, female teenagers and girls, the investigators called in detective Kay Horne of the Sheriff's Office personal violence division."

I guess that's how?

edit- and he seems to have admitted to it.

 

[bro1]

It's all about consent. If she posts the picture online for public access, she has given consent for anyone to be able to view that photo. If you snap pictures of her and she doesn't know about it, she hasn't given consent.

Shouldn't that be a civil issue and not something that will put you in jail? What happens if you take a picture of somebody with their consent and somebody is in the background?

 

[Devolution]

This also puts a huge question mark on the legality of what paparazzi do for a living.

Public figures aren't the same as private citizens. You can however argue that they should retain more privacy rights and I'd agree.

 

[strafer]

What if I take pictures of myself in public and use to masterbate?

 

[Amikami]

I agree that this is pretty creepy and I could see it being illegal, mostly for the reason that the pictures are taken without the consent of the women. The masturbation is just creepy.

I thought of the Confessions thread as I entered this one.

 

[CornBurrito]

what about mental pictures?

You're fucking sick and should be jailed.

 

[Rokam]

What if I take pictures of myself in public and use to masterbate?

You could probably sue yourself if you didn't give consent. Good luck!

 

[Souldriver]

I'd say that as long as the pervert doesn't distribute the photo's himself on the internet or in real life, it shouldn't be illegal.

It's creepy, and deserves a kick in the nuts by the women being photographed. But jail time for this is too much.

 

[Kettch]

I'd be fine with it being illegal to take someone's picture without their consent. Not sure I agree with it only being illegal when the picture is used for masturbation material though, that seems like a pretty poor law.

 

[tuna on toast]

OP and some others in the thread might want to learn the definition of consent.

The pics were taken in public places. Why would consent be needed?

 

[LordCanti]

This also puts a huge question mark on the legality of what paparazzi do for a living.

Note to self: Don't touch yourself to paparazzi photos.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Public figures aren't the same as private citizens. You can however argue that they should retain more privacy rights and I'd agree.

Is there a legal distinction between a public figure and a private figure? It seems impossible to me how jurisprudence draws the line.

 

[Broder Salsa]

How is the legal status on the post your pics thread?

Edit :

It's all about consent. If she posts the picture online for public access, she has given consent for anyone to be able to view that photo. If you snap pictures of her and she doesn't know about it, she hasn't given consent.

Oh

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

OP and some others in the thread might want to learn the definition of consent.

It's legal to take pictures of people without explicit consent as long as they aren't in a location (like a restroom) where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[cutmeamango]

That's why I take wide angle shots and crop the goodies in photoshop later. What a dummy, pfft.

 

[adamsappel]

Well, there's a whole subsection of xhamster that just went off-limits!

I honestly don't see how this can be constitutionally illegal.

I'd be fine with it being illegal to take someone's picture without their consent. Not sure I agree with it only being illegal when the picture is used for masturbation material though, that seems like a pretty poor law.

You realize this would mean you'd have to get everybody's permission who appears in the background of a picture taken of yourself?

OP and some others in the thread might want to learn the definition of consent.

Enlighten us.

 

[feel]

OP and some others in the thread might want to learn the definition of consent.

lol you finally got tagged

 

[marrec]

It'd be amazing if this went case went to the supreme court.

Just imagine Scalia writing a decision arguing in favor of masturbating like this.

 

[shira]

what about mental pictures?

Google Glass is going to change everything

 

[Rapstah]

A. Video voyeurism is:

(1) The use of any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photo-electric, or any other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping a person where that person has not consented to the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping and it is for a lewd or lascivious purpose; or

(2) The transfer of an image obtained by activity described in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection by live or recorded telephone message, electronic mail, the Internet, or a commercial online service.

Weird law, in the first point they specifically limit the crime to "lewd or lascivious" purposes, which I guess is... jacking off? Then in (2) the crime seems to be extended to transferring the picture in any way, regardless of the purpose. Every time someone uploads a photo to Facebook with someone in the background who did not agree to be in the photo they are technically breaking the voyeurism law then?

 

[Cat Party]

This kind of law will pretty much have to give way as it becomes easier and easier to take pictures/video in public. In a few years, when we're all wearing glasses that can photograph whatever we see, what place will consent have?

But it sounds to me like this guy was a serious creeper.

 

[CornBurrito]

Question: Can I take pictures of young women and girls, and just make wallpaper out of them? Is this fine as long as I don't masturbate to them?

 

[Vermillion]

The pics were taken in public places. Why would consent be needed?

I don't believe you're allowed to take pictures or video of others without their notice or consent. Probably particularly so when you're singling them out rather than them being mere scenery in a photo.

 

[see5harp]

I'm just not sure why this dude would admit that he uses the photos to masterbate. Maybe he thought if he just came clean and admitted to jacking off he'd get leniancy.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Oh

Don't "Oh" that, it's not true.

If someone is in a public place, without a reasonable expectation of privacy, so a sidewalk, or the beach, you can take their picture and don't need to them to sign a release unless you are going to sell that shit.

Of course, laws vary from place to place, but in general 'consent' is not necessary for taking a picture in a public place.

I don't believe you're allowed to take pictures or video of others without their notice or consent. Probably particularly so when you're singling them out rather than them being mere scenery in a photo.

Incorrect.

I'm just not sure why this dude would admit that he uses the photos to masterbate. Maybe he thought if he just came clean and admitted to jacking off he'd get leniancy.

Likely one of those situations (read: ALL SITUATIONS) where you shouldn't talk to a cop or believe a thing they say until you have a lawyer present.

 

[Vermillion]

Weird law, in the first point they specifically limit the crime to "lewd or lascivious" purposes, which I guess is... jacking off? Then in (2) the crime seems to be extended to transferring the picture in any way, regardless of the purpose. Every time someone uploads a photo to Facebook with someone in the background who did not agree to be in the photo they are technically breaking the voyeurism law then?

Well it was describing the crime listed in (1), so I'm going to say you cannot transfer a picture taken for lewd/laviscous purposes.

 

[tuna on toast]

If I take a picture like this, should I need to get everyone's consent first?

 

[soepje]

.

 

[SerArthurDayne]

Weird law, in the first point they specifically limit the crime to "lewd or lascivious" purposes, which I guess is... jacking off? Then in (2) the crime seems to be extended to transferring the picture in any way, regardless of the purpose. Every time someone uploads a photo to Facebook with someone in the background who did not agree to be in the photo they are technically breaking the voyeurism law then?

No, it is just including the entire paragraph 1 without rewriting it. So if you transfer for a lewd purpose (theoretically your own or someone else's) then it would violate the law.

So you could take a picture of somebody who you think has nice shoes, but if you put it online intending (or possibly even knowing it is possible) somebody uses it for a "lewd" purpose you could be in trouble.