Japan moves to criminalize exploitative photo voyeurism

What? It’s not illegal at present?

Those pervert that intentionally do creative way in doing their action only being caught by anti-disturbance ordinances? Nothing more?

https://www.9news.com.au/technology/japanese-police-seize-hundreds-of-upskirt-camera-shoes/5afc080f-9cf5-410f-8877-83a1e2e46fa6

Until now, people caught by police taking photos without the subject's consent fell under the purview of prefectural anti-disturbance ordinances. 

I certainly agree that with the efforts to criminalize exploitative sexual photo voyeurism, but I did not realize that someone snapping a photo of another person in eye-catching attire (dress, shoes, costume, etc.) can apparently be considered a violation of anti-disturbance laws in Japan if the subject’s permission is not first obtained.

Female athletes thirty years ago exposed far less skin than athletes of today do. Maybe they should wear protective suits to discourage sneak photographers.

We shouldn't give up on legal controls simply because it is difficult to draw a line of distinction

Uh, yes you should! I've literally been taking photos on the train and had people come in from the other car mid shot. Am I guilty of voyerism?

There will still be men out there gawking at then buttocks until their blue in the face but taking a picture without permission is not nice. What about the survilance cameras all over the city are they not doing the same but in the name of security??

"It is a value that pervades our society. There is a Japanese view that sexualizes women," he said.

And often sexualises and infantilises at the same time. Look at the cartoons, advertising, music scene, ... This needs to be got to the bottom of. Not to excuse anything but there is a very deep insecurity behind it.

Under skirt photography, stealing women's underwear, stealing women's shoes, stealing children's shoes, installing secret cameras in women's toilets and primary/high schools and company toilets, braking in to single women's apartment and installing microphones and cameras are some of the examples of Japanese men's perversion.

He gave examples of other countries where clandestine photography is punishable by law.

Guess paparazzi are outlawed.

but I did not realize that someone snapping a photo of another person in eye-catching attire (dress, shoes, costume, etc.) can apparently be considered a violation of anti-disturbance laws in Japan if the subject’s permission is not first obtained.

Aim high when taking pictures of landmarks when people are present. Could make tourists and natives weary and nervous, especially when around cops.

According to the National Police Agency, the number of arrests for surreptitious photography reached 5,019 cases in 2021, roughly three times the 2010 figure.

According to reports in Japan Today, many of the upskirt "photographers" are policemen!

Maybe, they will on the other hand also be astonished how audiences and ticket sales will shrink. I guess, only a very few will continue to watch and pay for purely the sports events or competitions itself. Difficult to estimate, but it’s surely significant.

So athletes have to compete in revealing outfits, and we are encouraged to watch them, but now not photograph/film them?

Then why not just stipulate they have to compete in nonrevealing clothing?

And what about the media? Will they have to mosaic shots out now, like how when they film on streets they can't show private residences or cars/people and pretty much everything else? (Switches off the TV).

Then there is the beach during summer time.... Wait, they are already selling boring unisex swim wear; boring and nonrevealing.

This is fine, except that it's just pushing the sexes further apart. No wonder the number of people involved in a relationship with the opposite sex is plummeting here.

Right…..and who’s enforcing this?

Good on you Japan, and start with people who photograph High and Jr. High kids during games and sporting events, it is so obvious what their intentions are.

tora

Then why not just stipulate they have to compete in nonrevealing clothing?

Because some athletic organizations actually require such revealing attire, and penalize the female athletes who don't want to wear it.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/23/1019343453/women-sports-sexualization-uniforms-problem

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/641549735/one-must-respect-the-game-french-open-bans-serena-williams-catsuit

MeiyouwentiToday 07:37 am JST

Female athletes thirty years ago exposed far less skin than athletes of today do. Maybe they should wear protective suits to discourage sneak photographers.

Yes, by all means let's force women to wear head-to-toe protective suits instead of changing society's astitudes towards women and arresting men who sexually exploit women. Isn't that what has always been done? Tell women to chance their behavoir when they're not the ones doing something wrong?

toraToday 09:21 am JST

So athletes have to compete in revealing outfits, and we are encouraged to watch them, but now not photograph/film them?

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the difference between taking photos of athletes and taking sexually exploitative photos of women for the purpose of sexual gratification. Seems you are unclear on the difference.

Then why not just stipulate they have to compete in nonrevealing clothing?

You are saying, as the other poster suggested, that we should punish the women by forcing women to wear head-to-toe protective suits instead of arresting the men who sexually exploit them.

And what about the media? Will they have to mosaic shots out now, like how when they film on streets they can't show private residences or cars/people and pretty much everything else? (Switches off the TV).

Again, it seems you need to get more familiar with the difference between normal photography of people, places, and things, and sexually exploitative photos of women for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Then there is the beach during summer time.... Wait, they are already selling boring unisex swim wear; boring and nonrevealing.

Yes, I'm sure it's quite boring if you go to the beach and aren't allowed to take sexually exploitative photos of women for the purpose of sexual gratification.

This is fine, except that it's just pushing the sexes further apart. No wonder the number of people involved in a relationship with the opposite sex is plummeting here.

Yes, it seems pretty clear that the reason women avoid relationships is because they are tired of being sexually exploited by men. Can't say I blame them.

TaiwanIsNotChina Today 07:53 am JST

Uh, yes you should! I've literally been taking photos on the train and had people come in from the other car mid shot. Am I guilty of voyerism?

Another man who doesn't know the difference between taking photos of people, places, and things and taking sexually exploitative photos of women for the purpose of sexual gratification. Seems you are in need of help with this; perhaps get some therapy?

I recently watched a 14 year old girl gymnast on NHK doing very sexy poses, wearing very scanty clothes. Maybe this kind of acceptable performance needs to change? I was totally shocked because I usually don’t watch Japanese tv…

Funny that you have so many statues with revealed breasts in Japan and because you are photographed, nothing shall be seen.

What is wrong is the exploitive part because earning money or gaining internet traffic thanks to someone's body without his consent is an image and privacy rights infringement.

However I don't see shooting photos for his own, what the same can be seen with one's eyes, could be considered in any way irrespectful.

Japan is crossing the line to a more and more proven guilty until innocent for picture shooting.

Beautiful bodies of women are attractive to many men's brains. That is natural. Accept it. And the more close to naked the more so no wonder why athletes are appealing.

The issue is respect but when you see so many pictures, videos of ladies (or characters) in suggestive positions in Japan everywhere in public spaces, no wonder !

Women surely deserve better but complain at the root causes (education, porn contracts, work conditions...), not the consequences.

Good luck with that.

Upskirting should be punished way more severely than it is. It is clearly a form of sexual assault.

There is no clear boundary for what constitutes a sexual photo of an athlete. Most of them are fully clothed, and the sex aspect comes from what viewers with athlete fetishes project onto the photos. I would not lump this in together with upskirting, and kind of resent athletes claiming that they have been violated in the same way.

sexually exploitative photos of women for the purpose of sexual gratification.

I've only watched about ten minutes of it, but the comedy show Fleabag famously includes a scene of Waller Bridge's character masturbating to TV footage of Barack Obama. Was Barack Obama "exploited" by this for"sexual gratification"?

Going to the beach can be very Dangerous now.

You better have nobody in the background

It is a value that pervades our society. There is a Japanese view that sexualizes women.

That has nothing to do with it. The real problem is that in Japanese society there is such a taboo on sexual expression of any kind that many men find themselves with no other outlet.

What about the thousands of females molested on trains everyday. Sexual harassment at work. Kiddie porn anime on kombini shelves.

Females having to speak a formal submissive dialect .

kohakuebisu Today 11:01 am JST

There is no clear boundary for what constitutes a sexual photo of an athlete. Most of them are fully clothed, and the sex aspect comes from what viewers with athlete fetishes project onto the photos. I would not lump this in together with upskirting, and kind of resent athletes claiming that they have been violated in the same way.

They are spelling out what exactly it means, so if you're really that interested to know you can easily look it up.

I've only watched about ten minutes of it, but the comedy show Fleabag famously includes a scene of Waller Bridge's character masturbating to TV footage of Barack Obama. Was Barack Obama "exploited" by this for"sexual gratification"?

I don't understand your question. You're asking if a comedy show with a skit about Obama is exploiting Obama? Huh?

To define in law, prove intent to surreptitious photograph for exploitative photo voyeurism.

That is open to quote:  

'Ad hoc decision is one taken based on the circumstances of a particular case. with a particular end or purpose,' as distinguished from 'a coordinated policy.' 

"Adhoc Law".......

While the issue is particularly serious for young athletes targeted by people engaging in "sneak photography" at fields and courts around the nation, the situation remains unresolved as proving sexual or malicious intent in photos taken of athletes competing in sporting attire is difficult.

Define a fan from an alleged pervert in law?

Be very careful here

TaiwanIsNotChina, and 桜川雪 have contended a pertinent legal conundrum.

This is best left well alone.

One photo in haste could land you in a world of woe, when at the mercy of poorly misplaced/written laws.

Butt why....?

Another man who doesn't know the difference between taking photos of people, places, and things and taking sexually exploitative photos of women for the purpose of sexual gratification. 

While there may be a difference in intent, how does the law differentiate when one photo was taken with no sexual motive and another similar photo was taken by a pervert? I recall a time when my son played rugby at school aged about 13. An informal rule was introduced that photos shouldn't be taken. But most of the mums got angry that they couldn't take photos. The attitude was basically that if some pervert got off on photos of their boy covered in mud, that's the pervert's problem. The rule was dropped.

My own view is that the taking of photos in public places generally can't be restricted. Obviously, sneaky photos in private places such as changing rooms and toilets is a different matter. The difficult area is those sneaky upskirt photos taken by someone with a camera strapped to his shoe or in a bag.

However, there is a difference in how such photos are used. If the pervert keeps them to himself, then probably no harm done. But if the person spreads them on the internet, or sells them to others, that's a different matter. That's what I thought the word "exploitative" in the headline was referring to.

A large car manufacturer had a showroom event in my city last weekend. It was marketed as a family event but really it was mostly for kids. The onstage entertainment was a junior high school cheerleading group and a local idol group.

The front row of seats was entirely occupied by men in their early sixties with expensive long lens cameras.

Who is to blame here ? The fetishisation of young children in Japanese society or camera perverts ?

They'll make an exception for people sneaking photos of foreigners living their lives and/or visiting places. That, or they'll have to arrest my entire town.

The changes seems like a step on the right direction, I just hope the legislation is detailed enough to be useful without resorting to weird make-overs full of loopholes.

I was watching the Madrid Open tennis tournament yesterday, both men's and women's quarter-finals, and the TV cameras at the women's games - on EVERY service shot - showed down-the-cleavage closeups. So, I think the regulators should address the commercialization of such photography, as well as completely innocent tourists who might find some of the clothing displays of young Japanese women worthy of a picture. I also recall a TV camera following a women's soccer game in which a winning goal was scored and the player removed her shirt and ran around in her sports bra. Did they bust her? Pardon the pun. This issue can turn ugly and omnivorous in the blink of an eye.

So athletes have to compete in revealing outfits, and we are encouraged to watch them, but now not photograph/film them? 

Then why not just stipulate they have to compete in nonrevealing clothing? 

And what about the media? Will they have to mosaic shots out now, like how when they film on streets they can't show private residences or cars/people and pretty much everything else? (Switches off the TV). 

Then there is the beach during summer time.... Wait, they are already selling boring unisex swim wear; boring and nonrevealing. 

This is fine, except that it's just pushing the sexes further apart. No wonder the number of people involved in a relationship with the opposite sex is plummeting here.

Spot on, man.

There are a number of female athletes who dress in a style to deliberately look "sexy" and then complain about being photographed. They want the sponsorship but not the unwanted attention it sometimes bring.

Sorry girls, nobody is interested in your long jump. Its your skimpy outfit that is getting the viewers. Sad but you are in a no win situation.

What if you take a pic and there’s a scantily dressed young bird in the background, is that committing an offence? Also lots of women like football players and athletes and takes pics, or is it the usual one rule for men another for women

@girl_in_tokyo

A crime should require a specific criminal act. That act should not become criminal based on who is doing it or what nefarious thoughts they are having at the time. If the only act in question here is taking a photo with a camera or phone obviously and in public, it shouldn't matter what it is pointed at. These aren't national security secrets at risk here.

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday 05:19 am JST

@girl_in_tokyo

A crime should require a specific criminal act. That act should not become criminal based on who is doing it or what nefarious thoughts they are having at the time. If the only act in question here is taking a photo with a camera or phone obviously and in public, it shouldn't matter what it is pointed at. These aren't national security secrets at risk here.

I don't understand why so many men can't understand the difference between taking a photo at a sports event, and taking a photo of a sportswoman in a compromising position that sexualizes her and then is published for men to use for sexual gratification. And again, if you guys can't understand this difference, then I'd suggest getting some therapy.

falseflagsteveToday 12:57 am JST

What if you take a pic and there’s a scantily dressed young bird in the background, is that committing an offence? Also lots of women like football players and athletes and takes pics, or is it the usual one rule for men another for women

Exploring "what ifs" that are out of the realm of possibility makes it look as if you are searching for a loophole to exploit. Maybe don't?

Mr KiplingToday 12:22 am JST

There are a number of female athletes who dress in a style to deliberately look "sexy" and then complain about being photographed. They want the sponsorship but not the unwanted attention it sometimes bring.

Again - there is a difference between taking a photo of a female athlete, and deliberately taking a sexually compromising photo of a female athlete for sexual gratification. This seems like a very simple distinction to me, so honestly, I feel like you must see that as well.

In addition, this comment is just another version of "She is asking for it." And that is just odious.

Sorry girls, nobody is interested in your long jump. Its your skimpy outfit that is getting the viewers. Sad but you are in a no win situation.

In other words, women in sports are playing for the male gaze, for their sexual gratification, and not because they are just as talented as male athletes. Got it. Thanks for clarifying where your mind is.

This is ridiculous that taking photos of famous athletes would be considered crime. How will you decide if a photo has sexual intention or someone just taking a photo as a memoir, perhaps the person attended the tennis match or volleyball. If anybody is so concerned about their photo taken, they should not be involved in that type of activity.

now many women make false claims to get on a news line and increase their popularity, or whenever there is sense of extra cash.

John

it seems you havent read the discussion above. girl_in_tokyo must already be tired to explain obvious things but you shady-minded guys keep giving strange arguements...

John

I an sorry, maybe you are not shady-minded.

still you dont seem to get the difference btw just taking pictures and taking voyeuristic pictures