No, that law doesn't say anything about pornographic photographs. It talks about improper photographs, which is not the same thing at all. Both terms are extremely difficult to define, but I don't think any reasonable person would say they mean the same thing.
For reference, here is the link that Frantisek posted: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000021 .00.htm It also talks about "intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person" which is also, at least in my opinion, not the same thing as pornography. And 5 minutes on the internet should be enough to convince you that someone, somewhere is likely to be sexually aroused by anything. I think there is a good case to be made for laws against 'upskirt' photography and similar behaviour, but any such law has to respect the photographer's reasonable rights to take photographs in public, and drawing up such a law would be extremely difficult. The clumsy attempt referenced above may be well-meaning or not, but it is a licence for the authoritarian wing to do as they please. But you can see the mindset of the people who framed the law by the fact that they make homosexual activity illegal. They clearly believe that they have the right to decide what consenting adults can or cannot do in private. So what they would consider 'improper' is anybody's guess. -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: E.R.N. Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] >I have no problem > agreeing with the similar principle that if you take > pornographic photographs of a person without that person's > consent, that too is a violation. And THAT is what the law > that you all are complaining about, says.
