So people shouldn't stand up for what they think is right because of possible retribution? There goes every civil rights movement ever. Its good to be complacent!

So you didn't say I approve of upskirt photos? I didn't directly quote you? Fuck you, honestly.

Yes, but you can't be the thought police. These guys are being creeps on the street too. They're looking at you and they're thinking these things about you. It's up to you to ignore it. No one's saying it's not gross. I just don't see why it's worth this level of rage.

Yeah, I agree with you 100%. Everything you said is purely the truth. All I'm saying is that there are bigger fish to fry than a couple of douche bags taking pics of things they can see with their eyes and writing things they've already got int their heads. There are always going to be creeps on the internet and they…

That's always a danger, I guess. But that's all of their problems if its the war they want to have.

No, when you try to misconstrue my point into me approving "an anonymous stranger stick(ing) his cell phone up your skirt while you're unaware" we're having a fucking fight. Act like an adult next time, ok?

"but while I find the upskirt and teenagers in school stuff disgusting - and certainly illegal"

I think if you're going to spend your free time ridiculing and harassing people online you need to expect to be publicly shamed for it. Let them all have at each other.

If you can find me a Jez article berating POWM I'll agree with you.

Yeah, that's not what I suggested. More like, fuck anyone thinking bad thoughts about me. They're just jerks, and move on with your life.

This is going to get me killed, but while I find the upskirt and teenagers in school stuff disgusting - and certainly illegal - I have to say I don't get the rage going on here for most of these pictures now that I've seen them. They're mostly anonymous butt and crotch shots like what you'd see of fat people in the…

Selling photos as art is considered "editorial" and not "commercial". A model release is not necessary. Some contests and publishers require one anyway, but it's to cover themselves. A release doesn't protect the photographer, only the model and the publisher (though the photographer could be the publisher).

You just said she doesn't have the right. But I agree with you that she can shame him. She can scream at the top of her lungs what a pervert he is and point at him. I do believe in shaming quite a bit for bad behavior.

Personal experience is personal.

"I don't care what's legal or not—taking a close picture of someone who didn't agree is extremely invasive."

You're the idiot who started insulting my reading comprehension while purposefully missing all my points. You clearly don't want to have a discussion. You just want to slip in and insult and then claim to be a victim. Good job. You win!

We should totally hang out and not have anal sex some time.

The fact that no one is defending a man taking a picture of the underwear of a minor on private property during his work hours. That might be the difference.

Um... if you say so?

No, it's you who's wearing the stupid hat, buddy. It would be impossible because you have no right to privacy in a public place. You shouldn't because it's public. The photographer has rights just like you do. It's also impossible to define art that finely. Not court in the land has ever done it. It's a one true…