Donald Jackson: Why you should wear a burka to SeaWorld

[Dakota Valkyrie]

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ijgqs8.jpgA 68-year-old man is free on bond after being arrested on a charge of taking improper pictures of women at SeaWorld, authorities said.

Donald Edwin Jackson was released from the Bexar County Jail after posting $20,000 bond on the improper photography charge. Police arrested him Wednesday after a security guard at SeaWorld accused him of taking inappropriate photos.

The guard initially approached Jackson after noticing he was adjusting the lens of his digital camera on a woman in a yellow dress on the other side of a dolphin pool.

The guard asked to see the camera and found at least 12 pictures of women, some focused on their cleavage, upper legs and buttocks, the affidavit states.

The same guard also had seen Jackson taking pictures of other women while hiding behind bushes.http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Man_taking_pictures_at_SeaWorld_arrested.html
Sea World security officers found 36 images in all on the camera, including zoomed in shots of breasts and up womens' skirts.

The affidavit says Jackson told investigators the pictures he was taking "were not right." Police arrested him at his home Wednesday night.

Jackson is out of jail on a $20,000 bond. His next court date is set for May.

Sea World released a statement saying Jackson has been banned from the park.http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Man-accused-of-secretly-taking-sexually-oriented/rgeTXRwUTEenKVmc8Z5U7A.cspx

Would it be OK if you had a sweater and pants on? It's pretty damn hard to get a breast shot if they are not hanging out their in all their glory.

Creepy? Yes. Illegal? Seems to be in Texas.

[sherrz]

I agree with you, DV. I can see the creepy factor of it, but if you're at SeaWorld, I doubt you're going to be all bundled up.....

[Tazzzz]

I can see the up the skirt ones getting him into trouble, but not the other ones. Its hardly against the law to take picts of girls cleavage, when they have clothes on. Most of the problem is he was on private property , and they don't necessarily have to post the rules were you can see them at. Yes he was wrong to do it , but I don't see him getting into that much trouble for what he did unless they were minors. At best all they can do is ban his sorry ass from the park.

I highly dought he was the only one there that came home with boobie shots that day.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

He was using a zoom to get up women's skirts, in their cleavage, their thighs... whatever. Can't zoom in on anything that isn't showing. It's not like he was popping pics while holding the camera at his feet or shoving it down their shirts. And the accusations are about adult women - not kids.

He did get banned. As he should have. Creepy dude. But arrest him???

[hunnie]

I can see the up the skirt ones getting him into trouble, but not the other ones. Its hardly against the law to take picts of girls cleavage, when they have clothes on. Most of the problem is he was on private property , and they don't necessarily have to post the rules were you can see them at. Yes he was wrong to do it , but I don't see him getting into that much trouble for what he did unless they were minors. At best all they can do is ban his sorry ass from the park.

I highly dought he was the only one there that came home with boobie shots that day.


LOL...I think he should have gone the video route....he could have explained he was just unsteady a little...here & there....lol...Women dress in bikini tops and booty shorts going to the grocery store here, It's a natural thing...sweaters & pants ....It's 90 degrees here already...

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Women dress in bikini tops and booty shorts going to the grocery store here, It's a natural thing...sweaters & pants ....It's 90 degrees here already...
That's the thing. You can't arrest them for standing their drooling unless they get the drool on you. Why is taking a picture different? Creepiziod either way.

[Kaylara]

Taking a picture of someone without their knowledge is illegal in some places. (The Netherlands has that law, for instance.) It's creepy, and it's wrong. Staring doesn't have the whole permanence thing, and doesn't have the ability to be reproduced or disseminated. As for the up the skirt and thigh shots, you could be wearing a long skirt and have some guy get on the ground and stick a camera under you, and you probably wouldn't even notice. It's a gross violation of privacy because if you're wearing clothing you should have some assurance that those places that are covered will remain so and that no one will be taking pictures up your skirt.

I reject the idea that I should change my wardrobe or dress differently on the off chance that some stalkerish pervert will take pictures of my *covered* ladybits. I'm not doing anything wrong if I'm wearing a skirt. He's doing something wrong by trying to get access UP MY SKIRT without my permission. Of course, I could always just wear long pants and long sleeve shirts forever, (regardless of whether it's climate appropriate) because I, as a woman, am responsible for someone else's pervish behavior towards me.

Those kinds of comments smack of victim blaming to me. Or "it was her fault I raped her, because she was wearing that skirt." He's an adult male and is responsible for his behavior. If he's a pervert out there taking pictures of women without their knowledge, that's HIS FAULT. Not the women for wearing a bathing suit.

[Anodyne]

I'm pretty iffy on this one.

I could see the people hiding tiny cameras in their shoes to try and get upskirt pictures as possibly facing criminal charges, but this sounds a lot more like simple (if creepy) 'candid' photography to me. When people dress however they decide to dress and then go to a public place like sea world I think there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' that has been breached.

I mean if someone snapped a picture of a couple dolphins enjoying some coitus in the water, could sea world be charged with providing a place for the production of bestiality porn?

Not as retarded as the Fish Hurler getting arrested a while ago, but still somewhat moronic, imo.

[Kaylara]

They do have a reasonable expectation of privacy that what is covered will not be uncovered by some creep. Most don't even bother with the cameras in the shoes thing, they just get low on the ground and stick the camera up the skirt. And no, most women won't notice that. Me walking around in a bikini does not mean that everyone and their brother can then take pictures of me or my body parts. It's my body. If you want to take pictures of me, you have to at least ask first, because you have no rights where my body is concerned. This women had their pictures taken without their knowledge or permission. That's a huge violation of the rights of those women.

[Anodyne]

We can agree to disagree.

I, for one, wouldn't really give two shits if some 50 year old woman was snapping candids of me when I'm out and about.

If they have nothing better to do and get something out of it, good for them. It does blow my mind that a woman wouldn't notice a guy crouching down and putting a camera under her skirt, but, I'm not a woman so I guess I wouldn't know.

I would like to point out that it is obviously not illegal to take pictures of people without their informed consent, especially when they are in public, or the photogs would be out of work, as opposed to there being thousands and thousands of them.

They even get away with taking nude and semi nude pictures of people in private and semi private places without, in the vast majority of cases, getting either civil or criminal action brought against them.

When a person takes a picture that picture become their intellectual property and they are free to disseminate it as they see fit. The only time that can even be questioned is if they are receiving money for the images and no model release contract has been signed by the subject, even that has been given the heave-ho by the courts long ago if said subject is in a public place, thus forfeiting their right to reasonable expectation of privacy.

Seriously though, I can't get over it, how would you -not- notice someone sticking a camera up your skirt? You'd think the common reaction if a guy tried that would be a stomp on his hand, a knee in his nose, and a face full of pepper spray (and rightly so).

[Kaylara]

How is it possible that a woman is expected to have eyes in the back of her head? If someone is walking behind me or standing behind me, and bends down and angles the camera so they can see under my skirt, how is that my fault? Why is it that I'm expected to both notice, and intervene? In Japan, there is such an epidemic of this that all cell phones now produce a loud rude noise when a photo is taken so that the person you're taking the picture of will be aware of it.

Why should it be my responsibility to prevent you from being a pervert?

I dare say that candids of people are slightly different than someone getting a shot up your shorts and doing goddess knows what with it. The fact that they're not getting thrown in jail (some obviously are) or sued (plenty paparazzi are sued, constantly) does not make it any less illegal or wrong. And if you are using my visage or pictures of my body parts without a signed release from me or my express permission, you are wrong. It's my body, not yours. (This is a general you, not you in particular.) If you want pictures of body parts that you can have complete control over, either pay someone to take pictures of them, or take pictures of yourself.

And in the country I'm currently in, if you take a picture of me without my consent, you go to jail.

Examples: (Look at these series of photos and please tell me how she was supposed to notice? This is somehow HER fault for daring to wear a skirt. Right.)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e122/dayoldsushi060/475875.jpg

[Dakota Valkyrie]

If you don't want some guy taking pictures of some part of your body, don't go hanging it out in public.

With modern cameras, you do NOT even need a zoom to get a quality closeup photo.

http://i42.tinypic.com/ejbw53.jpghttp://i42.tinypic.com/2pqomf6.jpg
Exact same picture. Taken on a cheap ass point-n-shoot camera. With a better camera and software that is not MS Paint, you could get a nice shot with no zoom - and clear as a bell. (why anyone wants a close up of a turkey ass is beyond me, though...)

I will continue to wear what I please in public, but I refuse to act like a ninny and get all bent out of shape and call for the arrest of creeps for taking my picture. If I don't want that to happen, I will stay home or cover myself in a way that I am comfortable with.

You can't have it both ways. Either avoid the creeps or tolerate them... but it is not against the law to be creepy.

[sanityslipping]

Examples: (Look at these series of photos and please tell me how she was supposed to notice? This is somehow HER fault for daring to wear a skirt. Right.)

In the first picture, I could see how she might not notice.

In the second two, how could she not notice? Seriously? I'm very well aware of my personal space, and would definitely know if there was somewhere kneeling down, damn near between my legs. I would stomp the shit outta that camera, first, and then turn on him if hubs hadn't already gotten there.

I've been ogled by all sorts, sometimes its flattering, sometimes it's creepy. I have altered my wardrobe so that I generally don't have creeps staring at me. If I catch somebody creepy staring at me, I either give them a dirty look, pull on a jacket or hoodie, and leave.

Although lately, nobody's ogling me at all, so even if it was a creep ogling me, I'd probably feel flattered.

[calidreamin09]

well I have to say im glad he got arrested and is at least banned from the park cause im going to sae world today and my brothers would prob kill a guy for doing something like that to me. It sucked growing up being the only girl out of six but its great now. I would also like to state that texas arrests everyone for everything they put up with no crap here period. So if you want to be a skeezy perv at seaworld try san diego cause its not gunna fly in texas

[Kaylara]

Ah, but if this guy were taking pictures of teenagers or children, you'd want to roast him alive for being a pedo-perv, right? Why then do children have a reasonable expectation of privacy against this, and not adult women? In the case we're dealing with here, those women had no more of an ability to give permission or refuse it than if he were taking pictures of children or teens. We do in fact put creeps in jail all the freaking time, for behaving in very creepy ways.

I mean, if you're flattered by the creepiness or by some random stranger taking pictures of you, fine. And if you think that it's acceptable that women should just stay home or cover up to avoid perverts taking pictures of them, that's fine too. I think it's fully unacceptable to told women responsible for the fact that some men can't control themselves. I think it's unreasonable to expect women to stay home or "cover up" to avoid being photographed, and I think it's just plain wrong to blame them for doing otherwise because a man wants to be a pervert. The women in this case DID NOTHING WRONG. It was totally the man doing something wrong. But I think if you're going to make these arguments just because this case applies to grown women, that you should really think twice about your righteous indignation and horror when perverts do exactly the same thing to children or teenagers. Either we should all be afforded the same rights over our bodies or no one should have them.

[Anodyne]

Everybody has the right to stay home or dress like a Muslim.

I'm cool with that ma'am.

I'm cool with that.

But what you just brought up really does imply a whole different level of creepy/pervy than if they do it to normal grown women.

That's like saying since people eat cows, why do we look at them differently if they roast a neighborhood cat.

It's getting to the point where I think you are railing far too hard against something that is, while creepy, essentially harmless.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

I am just pointing out common sense. No horror involved. I wear skimpy clothes when I feel like it and could care less what whoever sees or what they think. I am perfectly capable of judging my own comfrot zone AND if I want to deal with the reprecussions of it.

Are we to ban cameras in public? The capabilities of current cameras are enormous even without the zoom. (and getting better by the minute) Will there be camera cops looking at all the photos you took to make sure that none were "too zoomed in" on something that was obvious to everyone? Should we follow them home to make sure they don't crop out everything but the boobs or asses?

The random stranger can take what looks to be a perfectly normal shot - one you would think nothing of - and STILL take it home to jack off to your ass.

Since turkey butts didn't seem clear enough...
http://i39.tinypic.com/iqh892.jpghttp://i41.tinypic.com/2rdguwg.jpg

Those are the SAME picture done without any fancy software or camera. One is just a cropped portion of the original. And if I was a creepazoid, you could bet I would have something that could do it a lot better. No need to zoom on the camera or even draw attention to oneself.

You can't arrest everyone that takes a picture. You can ban public camera use if you really wanted.

But if the thought of a shithead maybe possibly kinda sorta taking a picture offends you, why take the chance? Cover up.

It is not a commentary on my personal style, it is a commentary on the lunacy of people that would be offended by having a picture taken of something they put on public display.

[LDhummingbird]

This whole thread just makes me glad I don't have teenage daughters.