Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/26/2004 12:07:02 PM EST
Our local newspaper has a "call the editor" column (for those who can't even write, I guess ) and someone called in protesting a bill that is supposedly before congress which would make it a federal offense to photograph or video tape another person without their consent unless the person was on publically-owned land. This sounds like a load of bullshi'te to me but I wanted to check to see if anyone here has heard of this. (Already checked Snopes but no listing for it was found)
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 12:18:23 PM EST
So I guess pictures at Disney World are out of the question then....

Sounds stupid.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 12:22:06 PM EST
So does this mean that the video clips of the gun store owners who were interviewed about the AWB who were taken edited greatly out of context can say "I didn't consent to THAT usage of my images" can sue?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 12:22:42 PM EST
I'm guessing this has something to do w/ hollywierd paparazzi, or something of that ilk. I suppose I'd get tired of it too. Of course, public land is a large free-fire zone, so even if it passes, it'd probably be only a minor impedence to the tabloids.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 12:23:59 PM EST
Nothing like that came up during a Thomas search. This is the only thing I found that is even remotely related:

S. 1301



AN ACT
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit video voyeurism in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.

(a) In General- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 87 the following new chapter:

`CHAPTER 88--PRIVACY

`Sec.

`1801. Video voyeurism.

`Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism

`(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent , and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

`(b) In this section--

`(1) the term `capture', with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph , film, record by any means, or broadcast;

`(2) the term `broadcast' means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;

`(3) the term `a private area of the individual' means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;

`(4) the term `female breast' means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and

`(5) the term `under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy' means--

`(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or

`(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.

`(c) This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.'.

(b) Amendment to Part Analysis- The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 87 the following new item:
--1801'.

Link Posted: 9/26/2004 12:34:08 PM EST
I think Nimrod1193 nailed it.

I believe that just passed the Senate a couple of days ago.

Has to do with using cell phones to surreptitiously take photos in locker rooms and such. Note the term “expectation of privacy”.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 12:49:23 PM EST
They always have to write in that "law enforcement" protection.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 12:57:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By gunham:
They always have to write in that "law enforcement" protection.



And why shouldn't they?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 1:27:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 1:37:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
I blame Ilikelegs and RedGoat for this!



Upskirt commandos.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 1:50:34 PM EST

(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent , and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

`(b) In this section--

`(1) the term `capture', with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph , film, record by any means, or broadcast;

`(2) the term `broadcast' means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;

`(3) the term `a private area of the individual' means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;



Top Top