Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Court: Sexual Predators Protected By the 1st Amendment…2nd Amendment For Law Abiding? Still Ok To Infringe

It boggles the mind sometimes when I hear how judges rule things.  But a case in which a judge actually defended a case of a sexual predator who was taking photos up women’s skirts takes the cake.

On Wednesday, the highest Criminal Court in Texas, tossed out part of a law that sought to criminalize the improper photographing of video recording of images commonly referred to as “upskirting” or “downblousing”.  Basically taking a photo up a woman’s skirt or down her shirt.  First of all, I’m shocked that crawling under a woman and sticking a camera between her legs and taking a snapshot ISN’T a crime everywhere.

Secondly that I am shocked that the Texas court ruled such a law is unconstitutional and did so in a ruling of 8-1.

But finally I am most shocked with the asinine reasoning behind the decision.

According to court these sexual perverts are “artists.”  These photos are “inherently expressive” and as such are protected.

Presiding Judge Sharon Keller in my eyes went off the rails in writing her opinion in which she states:

“The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush.  A person’s purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.”

So sleazy scumbags can sexually violate a woman and so long as they snap a photo they can call it art?  What’s next, rapist videotaping it and defending himself by saying it was for art and he was just expressing himself?

Then we have a professor at the University of Houston Law Center that makes me question that University’s qualifications.  Peter Linzer who teaches Constitutional Law, especially the First Amendment, at the school defended the ruling and said:

 “It’s hard to see how you could make taking a picture a crime.

Really?  It’s hard?  It’s called child pornography.  Pretty sure we made that a crime so the precedent has been met.

Yet Linzer actually is ok with kiddie porn as he said, in defense of the man who photographed unknowing children with an underwater camera from below, who brought this case about:

“To think that it’s unlawful to look at a little girl in a swimsuit, when you have lascivious thoughts, in public? And you did not do anything to that child? That cannot be made a crime in the United States.”

But he didn’t just look, he took compromising photographs.  For all the squawking that liberals do when they attack the 2nd Amendment and say that we must “protect the children” when it comes to artistic pedophiles hiding behind the First Amendment they cheer “artistic freedom.”

So basically in Texas the First Amendment has carte blance to encapsulate anything and according to Judge Keller that includes rape so long as you photograph it for artistic creation.

Yet somehow, the 2nd Amendment is free to be infringed in Texas.  Don’t get me wrong, Texas is ok with gun rights but they are one of only five states that do not allow the open carrying of firearms.

Two thoughts spring to mind.  First, what if I call the open carrying of a loaded firearm an artistic expression of my post contemporary view on modernistic liberty…does that mean I can carry it with First Amendment grounds?

Secondly, if Texas allowed open carry and woman embraced the practice, I wonder how many scumbags with cameras would be willing to still climb up skirts in order to take a snap shot.  The flash they see won’t be coming from the camera.

Sadly, according the high court in Texas, the right that expressly states that it “shall not be infringed” is allowed to be, while sexual predation in all its forms can be chalked up to artistic license and therefore legal under the freedom of expression.

What a load of crap.  These judges should be ashamed…and I hope someone crawls up their robes and takes a few pictures…see how THEY like it.



  • When a perve photographer get a bullett through the lense. Ill have a big smile on my face. Say cheese

  • colsooonscoorner

    Sounds like the judges are a bunch of perverts to me. Must get some kind of vicarious thrill just thinking about it. Wow what a judiciary. Wonder if they were appointed by demoncrats. They seem to have a perverse view of life too.

    • cHUCK

      Two things about this case I find totally mystifying.

      First, Texas is SUPPOSED to be a conservative state with conservative values reflected in both its people and its laws. Why was this “photographer” (read “pervert”) not charged with sexual assault? Have the men of Texas so lost their respect for their women that they don’t find this sort of behavior a VIOLATION of their women?

      Second, and this is a real corker, a WOMAN judge wrote the decision and expressed the most absurd reasons for it. Have Texas women so lost their self-respect that an educated woman (she MUST be well educated to have become a judge) would have any part in such a decision? If she’s so concerned about the 1st Amendment “rights” of this creep to ogle the panties of unwilling women from behind a camera, how about another Constitutional rights – like the 4th Amendment right to be secure in one’s person?

      Even party politics can’t explain this. Any decent person considering moving to Texas should think twice. Worse, the court decision in this case sets a TERRIBLE precedent – for ALL of us in ALL states! Shame on the Texas judicial system! And shame on the people of Texas for electing judges who would render such a decision.

  • ADRoberts

    1. What happened to the supposed “right of privacy” that the SCOTUS claimed protected abortions?
    2. What happened to the requirement that those people who have had their picture taken be compensated (money) or sign a release allowing those pictures of THEMSELVES be used.
    All of those rights are ignored by letcherous dirty minded people who have the audacity to call themselves judges. It would appear that in order to prevent dirty people from photo graphing without permission and in a pornographic manner, (also not considered) it will be necessary for women to start wearing trousers, preferably khakis that are slightly too big.

Send this to friend