Some of my favorite quotes from the excerpt are below:
Reporter: "The problem, Cambridge Police say: he has not broken any laws... liking feet is not a crime"
Police: "He was identified but the problem is right now, that there was no criminal intent that we know of"
Yoga instructor: "So it just sounds like, you know, somethings thats like a problem, if nothing else it sounds like he needs like, help"
Random fat citizen: "That's a little weird... it's kinda bizaar"
Sneakyfootphotographers beware!! If it comes off too creepy, regular people will start freaking out and foot fetish will get a bad name (God forbid that, LOL). I'm sure we all like feet as much as the next guy, but seriously folks, we gotta try not to collectively come off as freaky to these normal people who just want us all in jail for having a creepy foot fetish.
STOP HORRIFYING THESE INNOCENT WOMEN WITH YOUR FOOT FETISHES!!!!
[ August 21, 2007, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Tyler D. ]
Posted by russ (Member # 10866) on :
agreed 100%, show some self-control!
Posted by eusak (Member # 14476) on :
Thanks for the link Tyler. Since I myself tape candids, this was definitely of interest to me. I've found that when the subjects of my recording have noticed the camera, they usually react with indifference, amusement, or, in the worst case, mild annoyance. I suppose the average woman could care less if her feet turn me on. Some are even in to it!
I guess I've been lucky so far. However, I know that, sooner or later, my luck will run out! I keep thinking I'm going to hang up my camera one day, but each spring, when bare feet are exposed again, I find the urge to record them difficult to resist. I guess the lack of repercussions(and the awesome segments I get!) are clouding my good judgement.
I certainly feel remorse about my perverted hobby, but I have to admit I'm hooked! Showing self control hasn't been easy. However, this time I really think I'm going to give it up. I'd hate to be reduced to just some freak on the news!
BTW, I can't help but wonder what that reporter's feet look like. LOL!
Posted by eusak (Member # 14476) on :
Another note: I couldn't help but be amused by all the random candid foot shots the camera-person was taking for the report. I suppose it proves that candidly recording feet is, indeed, legal if not immoral.
Posted by Tyler D. (Member # 11452) on :
quote:Originally posted by eusak: I couldn't help but be amused by all the random candid foot shots the camera-person was taking for the report.
yeah, that's like the biggest hypocrisy of the report, LOL
they had all kinds of candid feet being shown, likely unknown to those random citizens too, but yeah, god forbid that someone with a foot fetish take those shots, then it becomes a perverted obsession. there's so many situations in life where things get way blown out of proportion just because of misdirected perceptions (external or self).
it amazes me many times at how little, people logically take a step back and really think before they go on to describe the atrocities of someone else based solely on their own gut felt emotions at any moment in time. It can be quite comical at times to hear some of the biased reports, as we've seen here WRT to how much more awful this guy must be for his candid photos on his phone as well, LOL
[ August 21, 2007, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Tyler D. ]
Posted by Eliza Durden (Member # 22995) on :
Interesting that he has not broken any laws, but at the end of the video they label him a suspect and give a description.
Posted by footntoesmassager (Member # 12132) on :
Geez...crazy. You could tell the male reporter was having trouble with reporting this story.
That guy needs to get a grip and have some self control.
Posted by Dr. Panglos (Member # 20530) on :
I do agree that he broke no laws with the pics. I have to admit, since I have a few cameras with some kick-ass-zoom capability I've been guilty of snapping a few photos of unsuspecting ladies at the beach/pool. However, fondling feet without the ladies permission is where I think he could/should be charged.
As far as pictures are concerned I recall a similar case in SC where a man was caught taking pics of women's feet in public (with a video camera no less!). He was actually hauled before a judge, who of course, ruled in the footagrapher's favor. The reasoning; "individuals entering the public forum have no real expectations of privacy." I tried to google the case but came up empty. I do remember it was around 1995 best I can recall.
To my type of thinking there's some sound reasoning on the judge's behalf. Think about it... why would a lady go all out w/ a pedicure, anklet, toe rings and tattoos (in come cases) if she didn't want to draw attention to her feet? Can any of you ladies out there field this one for me? I obviously have no real experience to draw upon so your input should be educational to say the least.
I do, however, think that this guy crossed the line by fondling the ladies the feet with no invite. Kinda seemed to me that he committed subterfuge with the yoga instructor... that was outta line in my world! Although I can't fault his taste in feet... yoga babes are soooooo HOT!!!
Can anyone tell me where I’m wrong?
DocPang
Posted by octoberbaseball (Member # 20977) on :
Interesting report but it's tough sometimes you get caught up in a moment and you have to just pause and think of consequences. As for the video can't leave out the unattractive woman at the end ewww feet are disgusting. Yea good thing we got her point of view. Also I'm one who wonders what the reporters feet looked like.
Posted by solelvr2007 (Member # 20632) on :
yeah even though feet are more exposed than other normally attractive parts doesn't mean its a free-for-all...
Posted by GeorgyPorgy (Member # 20439) on :
This is like news. Are you serious.
I think it's like totally stupid, that like, dumb broads are like on T.V. passing judgment on people.
Nevertheless, the guy should be a little more slick.
Incidents like this do give us all a bad name.
Posted by DaBootman (Member # 1280) on :
One thing that makes me wander, is how they only interviewed (or only showed) 2 people who said it was "Like bazaar" and "Ewww i hate feet" type of unattractive lady. How many others had they come across that said, "i don't see what the big deal is?" Or "I don't mind feet, to each his own"
I bet there were just as many who did say something along those lines. But this is media. They want to persuade people.
My opinion, if you're in public (and a police officer told me this while searching my car one nite) there are no expectations of privacy in a public place where most things are in plain site. (what he was looking for was safely tucked into some removable parts of my interior tehehe) Taking photos of anything in a public place, including people, as long as for personal or educational use and not for sale, or any other form of deviant or sexual intent (sale on a clips site, candid sites, etc) then he was really committing no crimes what so ever. I do agree, he should have been a bit more slick about the situation, and i myself disagree with taking pics of anybody without their permission. I'm more turned on by things that are consented to.
Also, add me to the list of "i'd like to see the reporters feet" Haha we're pervs.
Posted by RPM (Member # 2895) on :
oh give me a break!!!!!! that is more like making 'sensational' news... Forgive the spelling.. i'm sleepy. but, give me a break!!! they're making a big deal out of nothing.
granted.. touching is not allowed, but pics.. cut me a break.
that said.. i used to take pics of women's feet before i grew a concious (early). now i only do it with consent.
just because with consent... they can't turn around and sue you or call the cops on you. (or so i tell myself)
at anyrate... wish the reporter had volunteered her feet for the cause!
RPM
Posted by feetluvr (Member # 1570) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Panglos: To my type of thinking there's some sound reasoning on the judge's behalf. Think about it... why would a lady go all out w/ a pedicure, anklet, toe rings and tattoos (in come cases) if she didn't want to draw attention to her feet? Can any of you ladies out there field this one for me?
I agree with you that he crossed the line with actually fondling them.
I believe that the overriding legal precedence was that: 1) they were in public and 2) he was photographing what our society still believe to be a non-sexual part of their bodies.
And though it's a fine line, there's not any true legal precedence for "dislaying" and/or "teasing" behaviors. Prostitues are almost exclusively arrested for soliciting sexual acts, not being scantily dressed while standing on the street corner.
So it's interesting- 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.
Posted by blackHxC88 (Member # 15094) on :
the fact that he fondle them got him in trouble, but taking the candids was ok.
Posted by derwin augustus (Member # 25843) on :
can't do nothing if the woman is wearing sandals
Posted by rick_theone2002 (Member # 5816) on :
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
Posted by Tyler D. (Member # 11452) on :
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 Posted by F18Hornet (Member # 11172) on :
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.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Thumbs Up]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)