Sex Act Shakes The Fightin' Quakers

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/12/01/438eb029f035f

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/438eafe15413c

and the scandalous picture in question:

http://media.dailypennsylvanian.com/vimages/shared/vnews/stories/438d5a725d606-39-1.jpg

i wonder if the people in question were children of wealthy donors, because the course of action being taken against the photographer is rather extreme.

My Morning: A Play in One Uncomfortable Act

ME: Do do do do WHOA!

HALF-NAKED COUPLE IN MY OFFICE: GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE...

Kid is at the very least stupid. Just fucking watch and leave it be; why would you take and disseminate pictures of this?

The "water buffalo" thing is still amazing to me, because the whole controversy revolves around the kid's ability to claim that "water buffalo" is not an ethnic slur, even when we ALL fucking know he meant it as one (whether he realized it or not!).

dan, i work at penn. my office is on superblock!

Penn can step in because the kid was, presumably, standing on their private property when he took the pictures. Had he been standing in a public street, they couldn't even discpline him.

only if you're in the highrise directly across from it.

CITATION? PRECEDENT?

i agree, yet the university is treating it with the same matter of seriousness as said incident.

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/12/01/438f8524b694f

University drops all charges against photographer
Despite backing down, school still condemns dissemination of nude photos
jason schwartz
December 1, 2005

The University has decided to drop all disciplinary charges against the Engineering junior accused of violating the school's Code of Student Conduct, Sexual Harassment Policy and Policy on Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources.
The student had admitted to taking pictures of a couple having sex in the window of a Hamilton College House dorm room and then posting them on his personal Web site, which was hosted the University's server. The identities of the students were unclear.

The University offered a brief statement saying that they had decided to drop the matter, but that they were still disturbed by the photographer's behavior.

"We are concerned about the wide dissemination of the intimate photos in a manner and to the extent that subjected another member of the Penn community to embarrassment and ridicule," the statement read. "We have asked the student photographer to apologize and sincerely hope he does."

No explanation as to why the charges were dropped was given and requests for further comment were denied.

Andrew Geier, the psychology graduate student advising the photographer, said the outcome was inevitable.

"I think their position was untenable and they did the only thing they could do."

xpost

xpost (post originated from my ass)

The "victims" never made a claim here tho. It has nothing to do with a violation of their privacy. FWIW I think right to privacy claims are not really based in defamation.

Penn is private, right? Of course I'm sure they get federal funding and are bound by some federal agency agency regulation or statute like title 9, but seems like they could set their guidelines under contract as they see fit w/r/t speech.

If their code says speech rights are to be equivalent to first amendment rights, it'd be tough for the school. I think if the school wants to say that its sexual harassment they'd have to show that publication was not mere speech but conduct, and specifically meant to intimidate someone or some group, or create a hostile environment, if that's recognized by title 9.

I think maybe you'd have to see the guy and hear how he said it to be sure. Was he using his eyebrows racistly???

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.

Umm but so it wouldn't matter if the couple involved made any sort of claim or not. Like in different circumstances you could bust a peeping tom whether or not the person being peeped was even aware of the peeping, right?

I always thought there was a sort of blanket privacy from photography when you were, well, inside a house -- e.g. you see patio shots of celebrities, but never through-the-window ones -- but I guess I was wrong about that. (I suppose celebrities just have good windows.) This does seem kinda gray-area, insofar as ... well, you have sex in front of a window, and you probably don't have an expectation of privacy with regard to people seeing you. But you probably do have some reasonable expectation that someone wouldn't employ any special means to, like, record it. I mean, it's a good thing the university dropped it, and all, but I still wonder -- like, at what exact magnification level on your camera lens does it become kinda peeping? Like if you can cameraphone it from across the street, then sure, but if you're like carefully aiming a telephoto lens on a tripod ... it's hard to guess where a line might be.

1. Legal right to privacy: probably there was no violation of privacy in the legal sense.

2. UPenn disciplinary code: maybe there was a violation of the UPenn disciplinary code.

It is hard to make the argument that the purpose of this pic was to arouse viewers, but more likely to ridicule or shock. I'm positive that there are people willing to try to make it tho.

The PA statute basically says--

Under Crimes Code § 7507.1, enacted in 1998, "[a] person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he knowingly views, photographs or films another person, without that person's knowledge and consent, while the person being viewed, photographed or filmed is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A separate violation of this section shall occur: (1) for each victim viewed, photographed or filmed during the same course of conduct; or (2) if a victim is viewed, photographed or filmed on more than one occasion during a separate course of conduct either individually or otherwise."
"Full or partial nudity" is defined as "[d]isplay of all or any part of the human genitals or pubic area or buttock, or any part of the nipple of the breast of any female person, with less than a fully opaque covering." "Photographs" or "films" is defined as "[m]aking any photograph, motion picture film, videotape, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person." "Views" is similarly defined as "[l]ooking upon another person, with the unaided eye or with any device designed or intended to improve visual acuity, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person." "Place where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" is defined as a "[l]ocation where a reasonable person would believe that he could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his undressing was being viewed, photographed or filmed by another."

http://www.compleatheretic.com/pubs/essays/pccodes.html

(Of course, google will shortly have one page with this phrase on it)

xpost Jon I know she used the wrong word! I just didn't think it was worth pointing out, or anything. Also dude I just got equipped with bubble lead last night! If only I could remember which level it's useful for.

Something I read on this a while ago said something like many universities have (very controversially adopted the sexual harassment policies required under federal labor law. There, I believe "fostering a hostile environment" or something like that is grounds for a suit.

But, Penn is acting under its code. Penn can say that as policy it grants free speech rights equivalent with the 1st amendment. But other than as grounds for some kind of contract breach suit... this is not a true constitutional issue, no matter how the student howls, I think. AND, if Penn were TRULY at risk of suit under Title 9 for not having and enforcing a sexual harassment policy (and I'm only assuming Title 9 does have that, I don't know it as fact), then Penn may have a pretty good justification for penalizing the student, because I would expect that Penn has incorporated language into its code that the school must enforce its own free speech code WITHIN the bounds of Title 9 or whatever governs the school's conduct for federal funding compliance.

Interestingly, this strategy would not work at a public/state school, because there, the student's free speech really WOULD be a first amendment issue--there, the school is the state, and it can't impinge on first amendment rights, the Constitution trumps.

From your link...

"Despite this official's determined belief that 'water
buffalo' is a racial slur, a variety of experts who
could be expected to know a racial slur when they
heard one, disagreed."

Even better, "Gary Trudeau devoted a full-color Sunday Doonesbury to Penn, focusing on the inanity of speech-codes in general and on the particular absurdity of taking "water buffalo" as a racial insult."

You can't fuck with Doonesbury!!