posted
ya that is bs and i have had my run in with that! i was in a store shopping and i seen a pretty lady wearing flip flop and i said excuse me miss may i see the soles of your feet and she started flipping out and she was like 25 to 30 years old with a tube top short shorts and flip flop and going to freak when a guy ask to see her feet anyways the cops got called and they said there was nothing they could do but they did take a report and asked me several questions.let me know what you all think
Posts: 22 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rick_theone2002: ya that is bs and i have had my run in with that! i was in a store shopping and i seen a pretty lady wearing flip flop and i said excuse me miss may i see the soles of your feet and she started flipping out and she was like 25 to 30 years old with a tube top short shorts and flip flop and going to freak when a guy ask to see her feet anyways the cops got called and they said there was nothing they could do but they did take a report and asked me several questions.let me know what you all think
Oh man, I would've loved to have seen and heard the security video of that incident
quote:Originally posted by feetluvr: [QUOTE]...in a legal battle over this topic it seems that a good prosecutor would use the fact that the guy is sexually aroused by feet as his strongest evidence, while the defense attorney would utilize the fact that the ladies are openly showing, and possibly even trying to attract attention to their feet.
As a Trainee Lawyer, I can tell you all that if a case were to arise in the English Courts concerning a photograph taken of a member of the public by another (voyeristic photographs), where the subject material of the photograph was the person's feet, the case could go either way.
Though a person in England and Wales (NOT Scotland or Northern Ireland, though, as they have their own, separate, legal systems) has a right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (as enacted into English law under the Human Rights Act 1998), this in no way means that the taking of a photograph of another constitutes an invasion of privacy. Where a picture was taken by another of a person in their garden, this may constitute an invasion of privacy, since the person has a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy (unless he/she has given permission for the photo to be taken). However, there is no definite case-law on this,
A photograph taken of a woman's feet in public would probably not constitute an invasion of privacy, since a person in public has no reasonable expectation of privacy. (In France, there is an over-arching general right to privacy which makes all 'voyeuristic' photographs illegal, whether published or not).
It would seem to me that there is a three-part test for the taking of photographs in public. These are:
1) Does the photograph's subject-matter potentially give rise to issues concerning the subject's right of privacy? 2) Does the taking and/or publication of the photograph infringe this right? 3) Can the infringement of the subject's right to privacy be countered by a special defence?
The leading English case on the first two questions is McKennit v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 714, which basically states that there is no invasion of privacy law in the UK, and private information can only be protected by the bringing of a ‘breach of confidence’ action against (in this scenario) a photographer. But in my view such an action can only be brought where there is a pre-existing relationship between the photographer and the subject. In the case of voyeurism, no such relationship (usually) exists. So it boils down to whether the two parties have such a relationship.
But, the state has a duty to pretect individual rights under the Human Rights Act, so it is possible to complain to the state about the infringement of the privacy right as set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That has been Convention law at least since Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330, and a particularly strong statement of the obligation is to be found in X and Y v Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 235. In A v B plc [2003] QB 195[4] Lord Woolf stated that the Article 8 right is absorbed into the tort of breach of confidence, but Lord Nicholls said in Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 (supermodel Naomi Campbell brought an action against MGN who published pictures of her leaving a rehab centre) that ‘the touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed acts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy.’
In the case of voyeuristic photographs of women’s feet in public, it would seem to me that regardless of whether the woman knows the photographer or not, or whether she had given permission for the photograph to be taken or not, there is no illegality to be found in the taking of such pictures, except when the image in question also depicts what you and I would refer to as genitals or female breasts.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
