"Was I wrong? Yes." - Good, then we agree on something.

"SOME days I'd be camping next to the river and I'd start as soon as the sun was up and carry on for 14 or 15 hours a day.."

Considering that the commenters above seem to not even believe that other peoples' relationships (and how other people choose to spend their own personal time) are none of their business, I would guess no.

Yeah - spending time and effort that results in a rare, special, and meaningful gift for a loved one that is literally meant to last a lifetime is so dumb and pointless, huh?

What's wrong with spending (based on his estimate) what amounts to roughly (on average) 6 hours per week on a personal hobby devoted to his fiance and their future life together..? Is it not healthy for a relationship for both people to have interests other than spending every single waking hour together? Who's to say…

Under The Skin was incredibly good, and so well made. My wife and I saw it in the theater with someone who had seen it the just a week before, and we definitely all had to go get some drinks and talk about it afterwards. The scene where the guy "popped" was so ...unsettling (not like so much of the rest of it wasn't…

I had the same problem years ago with my (previous) dog. Got him this and he went bonkers for it; since it is hard plastic (soft enough for scuffs & tooth marks, but still rigid) he was never able to pick it up with his jaws, which made him try even harder. He would play with it relentlessly till he collapsed in…

Ahh... ok. Yeah - yikes, that's pretty bad.

Did blocking her not work ?

"..they came up with the idea after watching cars and boats alike pile up while waiting for a moveable bridge."

He didn't murder her.

She wasn't thrown - she fell as a result of resisting and trying to escape, after intervening with the officers' duties in another arrest.

Yes, the units within the building are private - but the building itself occupies public space. Thus, the view from the building is a public view (being that the view of the building occupied by the subjects is available to all of the occupants of the photographger's building - all of those occupants collectively…

"let's see what NATURALLY grows within 100 miles and eat those things" - that is the point.

Ah - foul language, name-calling, false accusations, and fallacious ad-hominem attacks; always the best way to make a point.

No. That would be assault - just as if a man (or anyone) physically put a camera up inside a woman's skirt.

No, that is not what is being said.

Ironically enough, the way the new law is written, they still (under this new law) would not be able to successfully prosecute the defendant in the original case that sparked the controversy leading to the creation of the new law.

"If the person didn't agree to be photographed then you likely weren't doing it legally in the first place. " - Not true. If a person is in public (or in view of the public), then you do not need their consent to photograph them.

If the view up someone's skirt is available to the public, the First Amendment certainly does allow others to take photos that capture that view (and it would not be a violation of anything).