Overlooked Privacy Invasion Ruling

Sometimes a story comes along that I am honestly amazed that people overlook and are not outraged by.

'Paternalistic' Law Banning Upskirt Photos Thrown Out By Texas Court

"Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of 'paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant's mind' that the First Amendment was designed to guard against. We also keep in mind the Supreme Court's admonition that the forms of speech that are exempt from First Amendment protection are limited, and we should not be quick to recognize new categories of unprotected expression."

So a law banning people talking upskirt photos of people against their will was overturned because the breaking the law amounted to a thought crime, and upskirt photography might be a new kind of expression that was unprotected up to this point.  I know that we're all distracted by the Ray Rice and other spouse beating scandal thing, and us going to war against a group of people on the other side of the planet because of the outside possibility that they might attack us here in America, again, but come on!  This ruling isn't getting the attention that it deserves.  This ruling just made it legal in Texas for people to invade people's privacy.  That's wrong, and the reasoning used for the decision is wrong.  The way we thing about things is a primary motivating factor of why we do things.  To discount people's thoughts as it relates to their actions is to discount a basic part of the way that people live.

Also, saying that a law is paternalistic in nature is not accurate.  It's not that woman are specifically protected from having their underwear photographed surreptitiously, it's that in most instances of laws like this being broken it's men photographing women's underwear surreptitiously.  It's like saying that laws against graffiti are specifically against people expression involving spraypaint.  No, that's just the circumstance where the law is most often broken.  There isn't a pervasive number of women who are surreptitiously taking photographs of men in their underwear, so women are not likely to break laws having to do with people surreptitiously taking pictures of people's underwear.

Why aren't people making a big deal about this ruling?  The only place I saw this case being reported on was on Jezebel.  As near as I can tell, this ruling did not get picked up for national news attention to any degree.  Why aren't people getting motivated about this?  Why aren't people getting mad about this?  Why don't I have an ending for this piece?  Hey look, a kittie!

No comments: