FBI agents busted for spying on girls undressing

[Anti Federalist]

Now, the larger question here is: WTF is the FBI doing monitoring dressing rooms in the first place??!!:mad::mad::mad:

FBI workers accused of spying on dressing room (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090420/Dressing.Room.Spying/)

By VICKI SMITH, AP
Mon Apr 20, 7:38 PM EDT

Two FBI workers are accused of using surveillance equipment to spy on teenage girls as they undressed and tried on prom gowns at a charity event at a West Virginia mall.

The FBI employees have been charged with conspiracy and committing criminal invasion of privacy. They were working in an FBI satellite control room at the mall when they positioned a camera on temporary changing rooms and zoomed in for at least 90 minutes on girls dressing for the Cinderella Project fashion show, Marion County Prosecutor Pat Wilson said Monday.

Gary Sutton Jr., 40, of New Milton and Charles Hommema of Buckhannon have been charged with the misdemeanors and face fines and up to a year in jail on each charge if convicted. Sutton has been released on bond, Wilson said, and Hommema is to be arraigned later this week. Wilson did not know Hommema's age.

The workers were described in a complaint as "police officers," but prosecutors did not say whether the men were agents or describe what kind of work they did.

The Cinderella Project at the Middletown Mall in the north-central West Virginia town of Fairmont drew hundreds of girls from 10 high schools in five counties. Organizer Cynthia Woodyard said volunteers, donors and participants are angry.

"I can't even begin to put words around what I consider an unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our government in a place we felt so secure," she said. "Never in a million years would we have thought something like this would happen. We're in shock."

Hospice Care Corp. was sponsoring the event, offering prom dresses, shoes and accessories to girls who could not otherwise afford them. Dresses sold for as little as $5.

Woodyard, director of marketing for Hospice Care, said this year's event was the biggest in the decade the organization has been holding it, with more than 800 dresses on display.

The prosecutor would not say how authorities found out about the accusations.

It was not immediately clear if the accused men had attorneys. Messages left at phone listings for Gary Sutton were not immediately returned; there was no listing for Hommema.

The FBI issued a brief statement, but refused to answer questions. The statement said the Office of Inspector General was investigating.

"The FBI is committed to the timely and full resolution of this matter, but must remain sensitive to the privacy concerns of any potential victims and their families," the statement said.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[MsDoodahs]

WTF?

They watch us try on clothes in malls now?

:eek:

[ChaosControl]

"I can't even begin to put words around what I consider an unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our government in a place we felt so secure," she said. "Never in a million years would we have thought something like this would happen. We're in shock."

This is the view of the majority. Most do not realize just how invasive the government has become.

This action is not a rare event, I assure you, it just happened that these individuals were caught.

Things like these should be shown to the common person who doesn't understand just how invasive the government is.

[He Who Pawns]

Where can I download the vid?

[brandon]

Honestly, put any man in a situation where he has access to surveillance cameras of a woman's changing room and a majority of them will watch the cameras.

It seems like a victimless crime to me, not a big deal. If you voluntarily decide to take your clothing off on someone else's private property, and there happens to be a camera pointed at you....oh well.

We still should abolish the FBI though.

[Original_Intent]

Where can I download the vid?

/seconded

[MsDoodahs]

This is the view of the majority. Most do not realize just how invasive the government has become.

This action is not a rare event, I assure you, it just happened that these individuals were caught.

Things like these should be shown to the common person who doesn't understand just how invasive the government is.

I dunno if the majority would respond with outrage or if the majority now has the "well, if you aren't doing anything you aren't supposed to be doing, what's the harm" attitude.

Very sad that there is even the possibility that the majority would be okay with such things...

but such is the US today....

ick.

[Bruno]

Honestly, put any man in a situation where he has access to surveillance cameras of a woman's changing room and a majority of them will watch the cameras.

It seems like a victimless crime to me, not a big deal. If you voluntarily decide to take your clothing off on someone else's private property, and there happens to be a camera pointed at you....oh well.

We still should abolish the FBI though.

A man's perspective. Wonder how many women feel the same way?

Would you feel differently if they videotaped you and shared the video?

[Dripping Rain]

i think their eyes should be plucked out. those peeping toms are no different than any other thug on the street only difference is they have a badge

[Carole]

Honestly, put any man in a situation where he has access to surveillance cameras of a woman's changing room and a majority of them will watch the cameras.

It seems like a victimless crime to me, not a big deal. If you voluntarily decide to take your clothing off on someone else's private property, and there happens to be a camera pointed at you....oh well.

We still should abolish the FBI though.
These young ladies had a right to expect privacy to change clothes for this charity event.

It is disappointing that anyone should feel this is a victimless crime.

The right to privacy is one of the most important reasons I visit and support these boards and Dr. Paul.

How will you feel when you are watched in every restroom? Or in your own home?

Have you forgotten those cameras and microphones placed on nearly every lightpost in the country? They can hear you now.

[sratiug]

All the people that think the pastor beaten by the border patrol was asking for it and should have just submitted to a search should have no problem with this. The FBI searched the girls and it didn't even inconvenience their time and they didn't have to be beaten and tasered and stripped and they weren't even cavity searched or water boarded. Hell, they have nothing at all to complain about, do they? :eek:

Now the feds have probable cause for whatever they want to do to the girls since they are bitching about being watched. The FBI watches everybody and most people don't complain... so complaining is suspicious behavior.

[acptulsa]

So, is the mall built on a state line? Is the dressing room in one state, and the exit in another? Because I can't see any other justification for the FBI having a hand in this. Why the hell is this federal agency being used for what amounts to private security to benefit a few stores? The FBI is not only not supposed to be involving itself in misdemeanors, it isn't even supposed to involve itself in felonies unless and until a state line gets crossed. This isn't their job, and it isn't their job because for it to be their job is a violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Well, I can see how this might happen, unfortunately. I just can't see the justification for it. You see, this rash of new federal laws against child porn would make it illegal as hell to record and store images of children using dressing rooms. If you're a private security firm, you're an idiot if you do it. And local law enforcement is taking a risk as well. So, if you're a mall owner, how do you deal with this? You call in the Feds, because only they could have immunity. Right?

Problem--reaction--solution worse than the problem. These agents were ordered to break the law. They're only being prosecuted for zooming in. Consider that.

Federal law=moral outrage. Again. And they scratch their heads and wonder where the secession talk comes from.

[brandon]

These young ladies had a right to expect privacy to change clothes for this charity event.

It is disappointing that anyone should feel this is a victimless crime.

The right to privacy is one of the most important reasons I visit and support these boards and Dr. Paul.

How will you feel when you are watched in every restroom? Or in your own home?


Since when does someone have a right to privacy when they are on someone else's property?

If I come over your house, can I stand in your kitchen and demand that you do not look in my general direction? Is that my right?

If I knew an establishment had cameras on the toilets in the men's room, and there were people actively watching them, I simply wouldn't go to that establishment anymore. It's the free market solution. Then again, I really wouldn't care that much if someone wanted to watch me take a crap...so maybe I would keep going there. lol

[Maverick]

Why doesn't the article tell us how old these girls are? They're described as "teenage" but no distinction made of whether they are underage or not. My guess is that they probably are underage, but the departments in question are just being vague about the details to protect their own state thugs. If private citizens were caught doing this, I'm sure they'd already be facing felony CP charges, years of jailtime, and a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. These two assholes are looking at a slap on the wrist and a fine. What kind of bullshit is that?

[slacker921]

All it takes is a pinhole.. so small you can barely see it from a few feet away. Be careful out there.

But my guess (with no info other than what's in the article) the event was held in a vacant store or in a conference room setting where there were existing ptz cameras mounted high up for overall security. Temporary dressing rooms were set up and nobody did anything to prevent the cameras above from seeing down into the "dressing rooms". The officers were watching the video feeds from the main mall area, the parking lots, etc.. and as the feeds cycled through they saw this feed looking down on the event and the dressing rooms.... and they zoomed in.

Again, just my guess, but it's very likely they didn't set up cameras in dressing rooms. What they did isn't right, but it's probably not as heinous as some of you are imagining.

[slacker921]

acptulsa .. could be they were staked out watching for one of the interstate gangs that shoplifts? .. there are groups that travel from mall to mall stealing millions worth of goods.

agreed though, it is odd that they'd be sitting and watching cctv feeds from a mall.

[Bruno]

Since when does someone have a right to privacy when they are on someone else's property?

If I come over your house, can I stand in your kitchen and demand that you do not look in my general direction? Is that my right?

If I knew an establishment had cameras on the toilets in the men's room, and there were people actively watching them, I simply wouldn't go to that establishment anymore. It's the free market solution. Then again, I really wouldn't care that much if someone wanted to watch me take a crap...so maybe I would keep going there. lol

Did they know they were being videotaped in a changing room or bathroom? Was it posted clearly that the FBI might be watching them change clothes? I highly doubt it.

[Danke]

Since when does someone have a right to privacy when they are on someone else's property?

If I come over your house, can I stand in your kitchen and demand that you do not look in my general direction? Is that my right?

If I knew an establishment had cameras on the toilets in the men's room, and there were people actively watching them, I simply wouldn't go to that establishment anymore. It's the free market solution. Then again, I really wouldn't care that much if someone wanted to watch me take a crap...so maybe I would keep going there. lol

Not saying it is wrong or right, but haven't there been some cases about this? Where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in say a bathroom. And isn't there some gal that successfully sued a guy who secretly tape them having sex at his place.

[gls]

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

George Orwell, 1984

[Bruno]

Since when does someone have a right to privacy when they are on someone else's property?

If I come over your house, can I stand in your kitchen and demand that you do not look in my general direction? Is that my right?

If I knew an establishment had cameras on the toilets in the men's room, and there were people actively watching them, I simply wouldn't go to that establishment anymore. It's the free market solution. Then again, I really wouldn't care that much if someone wanted to watch me take a crap...so maybe I would keep going there. lol

One other note, Brandon. You'd probably feel differently about this issue if it were your teenage daughter being spied on while she was changing clothes.


"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

George Orwell, 1984

We're close to this now, and even closer in London. And the darkness doesn't even provide protections anymore.

[IPSecure]

Could be they were staked out watching for one of the interstate gangs that shoplifts? .. there are groups that travel from mall to mall stealing millions worth of goods.



Cameras In Congress?
Could be they were staked out watching for one of the international gangs. There are groups that travel from office to office stealing trillions.

[brandon]

One other note, Brandon. You'd probably feel differently about this issue if it were your teenage daughter being spied on while she was changing clothes.




Yea...you're right. I'd be mad as all hell.

[Johnnybags]

Big Bro is now Big Pedophile. Ridiculous. The world has gone wild.

[He Who Pawns]

Why doesn't the article tell us how old these girls are? They're described as "teenage" but no distinction made of whether they are underage or not. My guess is that they probably are underage, but the departments in question are just being vague about the details to protect their own state thugs. If private citizens were caught doing this, I'm sure they'd already be facing felony CP charges, years of jailtime, and a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. These two assholes are looking at a slap on the wrist and a fine. What kind of bullshit is that?

The age makes no difference because there was no "porn" involved. It was simply naked people. Are people who take pics at nudist beaches with children there engaging in "child porn"?

Give me a break.

[Bill M DC]

§ 1801. Video voyeurism

(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(b) In this section—
(1) the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
(2) the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
(3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;
(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and
(5) the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means—
(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or
(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
(c) This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

[sratiug]

The age makes no difference because there was no "porn" involved. It was simply naked people. Are people who take pics at nudist beaches with children there engaging in "child porn"?

Give me a break.

If it wasn't pornographic why were they watching? Are they anthropologists or something?

[newbitech]

ok, how did they get caught doing this? No one is asking that question. Since when does it take TWO federal agents to monitor mall cameras in W.V. of all places? AND if they were caught, I am thinking they had a supervisor watching over them OR they are taping these little sessions and reviewing them later.

Tremendous waste of money for all of this shit to be going on. IF there is a crime successfully prosecuted here, will these agents be treated like a citizen? Will they have to carry the stigma of sex criminal with them for the rest of their lives? Teens are getting in trouble for "sexting", I see no reason why these agents shouldn't receive similar punishmet if they are indeed found guilty of video voyuerism.

[Liberty Star]

Now, the larger question here is: WTF is the FBI doing monitoring dressing rooms in the first place??!!:mad::mad::mad:
..


That is a shame.

[dannno]

If it wasn't pornographic why were they watching? Are they anthropologists or something?

His point is that pornography necessitates sexual content, and being naked is not always sexual. Changing certainly isn't. Even girls who are posing for magazines are posing in a sexual manner, but these girls were not. Now, if the girls were making out....

[Bruno]

ok, how did they get caught doing this? No one is asking that question. Since when does it take TWO federal agents to monitor mall cameras in W.V. of all places? AND if they were caught, I am thinking they had a supervisor watching over them OR they are taping these little sessions and reviewing them later.

Tremendous waste of money for all of this shit to be going on. IF there is a crime successfully prosecuted here, will these agents be treated like a citizen? Will they have to carry the stigma of sex criminal with them for the rest of their lives? Teens are getting in trouble for "sexting", I see no reason why these agents shouldn't receive similar punishmet if they are indeed found guilty of video voyuerism.

+1

Whenever an abuse of power issue comes up, there should be a quick, fair trial for those involved, but they should receive 2+ more penalty as someone who is not in a position of authority.

[He Who Pawns]

If it wasn't pornographic why were they watching? Are they anthropologists or something?

are Michaelangelo's nudes porn? i'm sure some people beat off to them.

there is a huge difference between nudity and porn.

should anyone who takes pics at nude beaches be convicted of child "porn" charges?

[MsDoodahs]

Where can I download the vid?


The age makes no difference because there was no "porn" involved. It was simply naked people. Are people who take pics at nudist beaches with children there engaging in "child porn"?

Give me a break.

Why did you ask about the video?

Since you saw fit to make a sexual JOKE upon reading the story, you can CAN the oh so innocent "it was just naked people" crap, because YOU YOURSELF saw the SEXUAL aspect of the story RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

:mad:

[acptulsa]

there is a huge difference between nudity and porn.

Well, stop preaching to the choir and tell those damned lawmakers. Of course, you'll have to make it good, because these national porn and child porn laws surely do usurp them a good deal of power. And they really love that.

[MsDoodahs]

§ 1801. Video voyeurism

(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(b) In this section—
(1) the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
(2) the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
(3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;
(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and
(5) the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means—
(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or
(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
(c) This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

So does that mean that these....these....letches are ALLOWED to pull stunts like these sickos did?

[acptulsa]

So does that mean that these....these....letches are ALLOWED to pull stunts like these sickos did?

Zooming in and lingering on one camera appears to have been their only downfall. And God knows if that's truly illegal.

I still want to know why the FBI was violating their jurisdiction.

[pcosmar]

So does that mean that these....these....letches are ALLOWED to pull stunts like these sickos did?

Some animals are more equal than others.


Originally Posted by He Who Pawns
The age makes no difference because there was no "porn" involved. It was simply naked people. Are people who take pics at nudist beaches with children there engaging in "child porn"?

Give me a break.

There was a recent story of a Mom arrested for photos of her Breastfeeding.
It was called Child Porn.
Yes naked babies at bath time are Child Porn if someone wants to make a case.

[Maverick]

The age makes no difference because there was no "porn" involved. It was simply naked people. Are people who take pics at nudist beaches with children there engaging in "child porn"?

Give me a break.

I'm not saying that should be what happens but it would be what would happen to any private citizen that got caught doing this. The government would likely deem it as "porn" (as "child porn" if they were underage) and said private citizens would rot in jail for the rest of their lives. If some state enforcers get caught, well, then the state is going to charge with whatever bare minimum they can get away with, which appears to be the case here.

So, I'm merely commenting on the inequity of the judgment of the law when it comes to sentencing private citizen vs. sentencing state employee. I'm not commenting on whether the laws in question are moral or correct, only that the application of the laws is woefully unjust.

So, you know, give me a break. :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

A man's perspective. Wonder how many women feel the same way?

Would you feel differently if they videotaped you and shared the video?

Or maybe if that was their wife or daughter.

Just because it was on "private property" does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, especially when the private property in question was public access and without informed consent.

If I owned a place of business, and posted a large sign stating that every customer, upon leaving, would get a punch in the nose, that would be informed consent and it still wouldn't be right and you would still be liable to being charged with assault.

[Anti Federalist]

Why did you ask about the video?

Since you saw fit to make a sexual JOKE upon reading the story, you can CAN the oh so innocent "it was just naked people" crap, because YOU YOURSELF saw the SEXUAL aspect of the story RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

:mad:

Oh SNAP!

http://www.xbox3sixty.co.uk/e107_images/newspost_images/pwned.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

So does that mean that these....these....letches are ALLOWED to pull stunts like these sickos did?

Umm, yeah.

They are cops, the fed cops in fact.

They can, and do, pretty much whatever they want.:mad::mad::mad:

[MsDoodahs]

:mad::mad:

That's what I thought.

:mad::mad:

[angelatc]

Honestly, put any man in a situation where he has access to surveillance cameras of a woman's changing room and a majority of them will watch the cameras.

It seems like a victimless crime to me, not a big deal. If you voluntarily decide to take your clothing off on someone else's private property, and there happens to be a camera pointed at you....oh well.

We still should abolish the FBI though.

I think that your argument doesn't apply since the FBI isn't the owner of the property. But yeah, I'd like to know why they are setting up in the mall.

[silverhawks]

Wait, so we can prosecute people for this, but not for torture?

We can prosecute these guys over (quite rightly) a criminal invasion of privacy, but warrantless wiretapping is ok?

The rule of law is being LAUGHED at here in the USA.

[gls]

But yeah, I'd like to know why they are setting up in the mall.

They need to keep tabs on all of the people not going out shopping. :rolleyes:

[RideTheDirt]

Why doesn't the article tell us how old these girls are? They're described as "teenage" but no distinction made of whether they are underage or not. My guess is that they probably are underage, but the departments in question are just being vague about the details to protect their own state thugs. If private citizens were caught doing this, I'm sure they'd already be facing felony CP charges, years of jailtime, and a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. These two assholes are looking at a slap on the wrist and a fine. What kind of bullshit is that?
It was a charity event for prom. They were all in high school.

[He Who Pawns]

Why did you ask about the video?

Since you saw fit to make a sexual JOKE upon reading the story, you can CAN the oh so innocent "it was just naked people" crap, because YOU YOURSELF saw the SEXUAL aspect of the story RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

:mad:

Uh, oh, I'm back on Doodahs' shit list. :(

The funny thing is, all the women on this thread are angry and flipping out, while all the guys are asking for download links to the vid. :D

Any guy in their right mind would love to see some nekkid video of hot cheerleaders changing or whatever. I mean, this is just common sense.

[acptulsa]

The funny thing is, all the women on this thread are angry and flipping out, while all the guys are asking for download links to the vid.

Speak for yourself. I did not do anything of the sort.





Not that I'd complain if someone slid me a copy...





j/k. Plenty of women are willing to show off. I have no desire to, nor any need to, invade someone's privacy without permission.

[He Who Pawns]

Not that I'd complain if someone slid me a copy...


;)

[acptulsa]

;)

But I must admit you have one point. Women do have a way of taking command of a man's eyes away from him--intentionally (on either side) or not.

[rp08orbust]

Honestly, put any man in a situation where he has access to surveillance cameras of a woman's changing room and a majority of them will watch the cameras.

It seems like a victimless crime to me, not a big deal. If you voluntarily decide to take your clothing off on someone else's private property, and there happens to be a camera pointed at you....oh well.

We still should abolish the FBI though.

I view it as a violation of an implicit contract that exists whenever someone enters into a place that any sensible person would assume is private.

[MsDoodahs]

Uh, oh, I'm back on Doodahs' shit list. :(

No, you aren't.

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy - saying "this is just some naked people, nothing pornie about that" while at the same time asking for the vid because you're horndog side is showing.

[Kludge]

Has anyone considered wrapping their entire body in tin foil?

[MsDoodahs]

Speak for yourself. I did not do anything of the sort.





Not that I'd complain if someone slid me a copy...





j/k. Plenty of women are willing to show off. I have no desire to, nor any need to, invade someone's privacy without permission.

And I am a HUGE defender of a woman's right to show off if she so chooses.

This was done WITHOUT PERMISSION. By frikken GOVERNMENT THUGS.

And that's the problem.

[Anti Federalist]

Uh, oh, I'm back on Doodahs' shit list. :(

The funny thing is, all the women on this thread are angry and flipping out, while all the guys are asking for download links to the vid. :D

Any guy in their right mind would love to see some nekkid video of hot cheerleaders changing or whatever. I mean, this is just common sense.

Speak for yourself.

There are some men in this world that still retain at least a shred of decency.

I would look at that and see my wife or daughter in there, being leered at by gov goons, and, far from being "turned on" I'd want to go kick some fucking ass.

Any good man or father should feel the same way.:mad:

[acptulsa]

I view it as a violation of an implicit contract that exists whenever someone enters into a place that any sensible person would assume is private.

Well, I've seen plenty of signs in dressing rooms warning that they are surveilled. Doesn't bother me particularly, as I'm rather shameless. But the fact remains.

Perhaps these FBI agents are doing us a favor, in that their act of zooming in and lingering is a nice reminder that government employees are, after all, only human. In this fight against socialism, I fear we too often err on the side of painting them as power-mad psychopaths. I have found I do better by citing the old truism, 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. But I fear it grows trite, and these self-control-challenged dipsticks are providing me with another way to say that.

Certainly it demonstrates that they aren't superhuman. The more the government pulls power unto itself, the less they are able to maintain that illusion. And we must take advantage of that.

[He Who Pawns]

No, you aren't.

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy - saying "this is just some naked people, nothing pornie about that" while at the same time asking for the vid because you're horndog side is showing.

well when I walk down a topless beach in Barcelona I might also get aroused if some fine ladies are around, but that doesn't mean that any "porn" is taking place on the beach.

:)

[MsDoodahs]

speak for yourself.

There are some men in this world that still retain at least a shred of decency.

I would look at that and see my wife or daughter in there, being leered at by gov goons, and, far from being "turned on" i'd want to go kick some fucking ass.

Any good man or father should feel the same way.:mad:

wooooo hoooooo!!!!!!

:d

[sratiug]

are Michaelangelo's nudes porn? i'm sure some people beat off to them.

there is a huge difference between nudity and porn.

should anyone who takes pics at nude beaches be convicted of child "porn" charges?

I don't even want to think about a nude beach with children on it so I'll leave that to someone else.

If Michaelangelo made real naked people and put them on display at a donut shop against their will for pigs to salivate over, yes that would be pornography to me.

These pigs were supposed to be doing something but took time out to watch young girls undressing. You can't really defend that. If they were in high school maybe, but these are law officers. If they weren't getting a thrill from it, why would they watch? How do we know they weren't picking a few out to rape later? Off with their heads.:D

[Anti Federalist]

These pigs were supposed to be doing something but took time out to watch young girls undressing. You can't really defend that. If they were in high school maybe, but these are law officers. If they weren't getting a thrill from it, why would they watch? How do we know they weren't picking a few out to rape later? Off with their heads.:D

Exactly.

I'm disappointed in the way this thread morphed into a debate over what constitutes nudity, porn or private property rights.

FFS, these guys were F freakin, Bee Eye!!

WTF were they doing there, WTF were they doing peeping in on a girls dressing room, WTF is the problem with just denouncing this as over the top police state insanity??!!

Fuck me running...:mad::mad::mad:

[Bruno]

well when I walk down a topless beach in Barcelona I might also get aroused if some fine ladies are around, but that doesn't mean that any "porn" is taking place on the beach.

:)

Ohhhh. You mean adults who are choosing to be naked in a publicly acceptable place - not teenagers undressing in a changing room having no knowledge they are being watched and given no informed consent.

Apples and oranges.

[Bruno]

Exactly.

I'm disappointed in the way this thread morphed into a debate over what constitutes nudity, porn or private property rights.

FFS, these guys were F freakin, Bee Eye!!

WTF were they doing there, WTF were they doing peeping in on a girls dressing room, WTF is the problem with just denouncing this as over the top police state insanity??!!

Fuck me running...:mad::mad::mad:


threadwinner

[He Who Pawns]

Ohhhh. You mean adults who are choosing to be naked in a publicly acceptable place - not teenagers undressing in a changing room having no knowledge they are being watched and given no informed consent.


There are plenty of topless teenage babes on Europe's beaches. Just being naked in and of itself does not = porn.

[Anti Federalist]

blimp

[acptulsa]

There are plenty of topless teenage babes on Europe's beaches. Just being naked in and of itself does not = porn.

So you have said--and said--and said.

And since you missed it the first time, I'll say again--tell it to your legislators. Because they seem to disagree with you. And if they didn't, why are people getting busted for owning nude baby pictures of their children?!

[Anti Federalist]

I view it as a violation of an implicit contract that exists whenever someone enters into a place that any sensible person would assume is private.


Totally off topic...spray that damn spider will ya'?;)