William Robb wrote:
If the guy was taking pornographic pictures of people without their
consent,
you must have weird laws about public decency in the way you dress for the
street.
Where I live, a person who was pornographically photographable in public
would likely be arrested for public indecency.
So a woman who wears a skirt but no panties can be arrested for public
indecency? Or shorts with no panties? So you would be ok with pictures
of your wife or your daughter circulating on the net of her private
parts because she so happened to have some "looser" underwear and some
perv was taking "upskirt" pictures while she was out shopping?
Pornography implies the pink parts are hangin out for all to see.
Or, the media could be ramping up a nice story with a bit of hyperbole.
I am sure a lot of Texans have weapons in their cars. Knives and ropes are
not, by definition, weapons.
BTW, I am not intending to attack Texas, I am taking umbrage with a
paerticular law in Texas which I see as having great potential to be
abused, which could very easily spread to parts of the world I happen to
live in and visit.
You shouldnt worry if you dont go around taking pictures of women's
crotches, etc. as a hobby.
This sort of stupidity needs to be nipped in the bud.
You don't have to live somewhere to be offended by violations of human
rights.
Who's rights have been violated?
William Robb
