USA - Texas Law

[Nagognog2]

Though not a drug story - this should give ANYONE the creeps! Who is to say what can turn you on? Or NOT turn you on? This law says, in Texas, being sexually aroused is a criminal act:

Teacher Arrested Under Peeping-Tom Law


DALLAS - A high school teacher was charged under Texas' peeping-tom law with videotaping girls' wrestling matches for his sexual enjoyment.
Police said David Ware, 28, often zoomed in for close-up shots of the girls' crotches.

The first-year speech and drama teacher planned to turn himself in to Grand Prairie police this week on charges of improper visual recording, which carries up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Ware shot about two hours of videotape at an all-day tournament Saturday but drew suspicion from a coach, Grand Prairie Sgt. John Brimmer said. A police officer reviewed Ware's tape.

"This was more than accidental footage of the genital areas," Brimmer said. "It appeared to be a purposeful act of zooming in."

Ware was charged under a 2001 law meant to protect people from ultra-small cameras that can be used to peek into dressing rooms or up women's skirts. Under the law, filming a person without consent for sexual arousal is a felony.

Ware's school, Garland Lakeview Centennial High School, was not entered the wrestling tournament.

His attorney, Scott Palmer, said Ware was simply interested in wrestling. And the lawyer complained that the law is so broad that could be used to jail Dallas Cowboys fans for taking pictures of the team's sultry cheerleaders from the stands.

"How do you draw the line?" Palmer said. "If you go to a Cowboys game and take a close-up shot of their cleavage, are you committing the same offense because you think that has sex appeal?"

School officials said Ware has been placed on paid leave.

[Riconoen {UGC}]

Good old texas, how I miss her so.

[old hippie 56]

But damn, couldn't he find something else to film besides girls wrestling. Bet he is from Oklahoma!!!

[Allez]

..... have I missed a big middle section here? Are you saying he should be allowed video girls wrestling matches?

[Nagognog2]

In that you perpetually side with the cops & government, I see no real point in saying that what is at play here the possibility to arrest anyone with a camera. Just say they are getting off to pictures of ANYTHING. Read the lawyers statement. But of course, you think lawyers should be locked up for obstruction of justice.

[Allez]

And zooming up on the girls crotches was an accident? A two hour accident?

Comparing Cheerleaders, who dress provocatively for that very reason to (what are made out to be) under-age girls at a wrestling competition is a childish arguement. I don't especially like you, but your above that.

[BeetleJuice]

ANything, as in school girls?Isent that akin to pedofilia? For once they actually have a GOOD law and now your complaining about it? he dident get arrested for having the camera,he got arrested for indecently video taping high school girls (under 18) wrestling....

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by BeetleJuice

ANything, as in school girls?Isent that akin to pedofilia? For once they actually have a GOOD law and now your complaining about it? he dident get arrested for having the camera,he got arrested for indecently video taping high school girls (under 18) wrestling....

Indecently video taping? Gimme a break.

[BeetleJuice]

I just noticed Allez was banned after 112 posts on the same day as they posted here...You dident ban Allez for disagreeing with you did you?

[podge]

Sounds like a bit of a sick pervert alright but a two year spell in prison would be a bit harsh .

[namooP]

It\'s \"up to two years\". You never get the full sentence, it\'s just something you have to mention. Isn\'t the penalty for littering something like \"up to 6 months\"? Who\'s going to be imprisoned for littering?

Nature boy, so you have no objection to some pedophile videotaping children? What if they were your children? You\'re belittling BeetleJuices arguement without offering one yourself.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by namooP

It\'s \"up to two years\". You never get the full sentence, it\'s just something you have to mention. Isn\'t the penalty for littering something like \"up to 6 months\"? Who\'s going to be imprisoned for littering?

Nature boy, so you have no objection to some pedophile videotaping children? What if they were your children? You\'re belittling BeetleJuices arguement without offering one yourself.

If legislation is drawn over the content of what can be filmed publicly, legislation has to be drawn over what is allowed to be displayed publicly. It creates a bureaucratic mess. If people don't want to be recorded in public, don't appear in public or don't engage in an activity that will draw recording. I know the above "crime" may be regarded as perverted or weird but the footage is not definitively pornographic, no-one is being harmed and no actual crime is being committed.

Reputation Comments on this post:

there it is....well said

[Nagognog2]

Many of you are totally missing the entire point. This isn't about perverts snapping photos of kids, though that's what this was centered around. This is about filming in public. Today filming the beating of Rodney King can get you arrested. All the cops have to do is claim filming that turned you on. Now can you prove in court that it did not? No you can't.

You can't prove a negative.

Similar laws are being enacted and enforced across the USA. Such as a friend of mine who was arrested and convicted for Felony Wiretapping. He's an independent journalist who was filming an anti-war demonstration in Boston. The cops didn't like anti-war demonstrations and didn't want them given media coverage.

What it's really about is twisting the law to take away civil liberties and stifle dissent.

[namooP]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Such as a friend of mine who was arrested and convicted for Felony Wiretapping. He\'s an independent journalist who was filming an anti-war demonstration in Boston. The cops didn\'t like anti-war demonstrations and didn\'t want them given media coverage.

Yeah, right. Next they\'ll be arresting people with ginger hair.

This is one of those cases where it\'s at the discretion of the officer. There\'s no way to specify what exactly is illegal and whats not without creating a law so full of loopholes that its pointless. So they make filming anything for sexual arousal a crime and use the blanket ban to arrest perverts. Theres no way to prove a negative? Worng way around there. If someones filming an anti-war demo, then theres no way to prove a positive. It needs to be blatent to really qualify and it has to be blatent to ever stand up for a second in court. Blatent, like a guy filming girls crotches for two hours.

It may be a little vague it it\'s specifics, but its clearly for the greater good. It\'s either this or nothing.

[namooP]

Today filming the beating of Rodney King can get you arrested. All the cops have to do is claim filming that turned you on. Now can you prove in court that it did not? No you can\'t.

You really think thats how it works? Of course that wont stand up in court. Can they prove it in court that it did? No, they cant.

[Nagognog2]

I'm not saying the proving a negative applies in the case of using wiretapping as the charge. I'm saying the officer could claim, in Texas, that filming an anti-war demo - or a police beating - was actually to give the photographer a sexual thrill. And there goes the film. There goes the photographer. And there goes the people who are now to afraid to use a camera.

[darawk]

It's not proving a negative because the burden of proof is still on the state. This law is perfectly legitimate because it isn't on him to prove he wasn't doing it for sexual arousal, it's on the gov. to prove that he was. The same is with this felony wiretapping charge, or a similar case with a rodney king style incident.

If he's doing it for sexual arousal, the state needs to prove it to a jury. If they can't, then he walks, and that's how it should be.

[old hippie 56]

Far easier to get a conviction on a sexual predator in Texas.

[allyourbase]

Originally Posted by old hippie 56

Far easier to get a conviction on a sexual predator in Texas.

one of the few aspects of our state's legislative codes I actually like.

the high school female wrestlers (imagine those beasts.) are the same ages as the cheerleaders. that is a moot point altogether. this was probably some sort of fetishistic behavior on his part, aside from the overt pedophilia. the way I see it is, had he just been at home jerking off to press photos of the girls wrestling matches he would have been fine, but under united states law any photographic material concentrating on genitalia, be it clothed or unclothed, is pornography, so he may actually be getting off light.

[BeetleJuice]

Eaither way i agree that texas is retarded,after all,look at the people is pops out.ahem bush. NO offense hippie

[billhicksfan]

so when does this tape go on sale then?