I made some shots in the last couple of months – please tell me if you think they are good:
link Tell me if you like them – i love to discuss the photos with you!
from: Olympus Pic Weblog
Kameryns Weblog
Kati-Lyns Blog
« Man irate about gas pump not working drives SUV into store |
Main
| Unemployed man living on boat knows he's doing better than others »
Teen: I took racy photos because there's no sex-ed at our school
The 17-year-old boy used his no-sex-ed defense after nearly 150 close-up photos of females' bodies were found on his cell phone. The females were clothed in the photos, but they appeared to be taken without their consent. (Last story in the round-up.) (Austin American-Statesman)
February 3, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
why is it against the law to take pictures of girls with a cellphone? it's not like it's child porn or anything.
Posted by: lester | Feb 3, 2010 6:02:10 AM
Huh? Photos taken close up, no mention of up-skirt shots, etc. Sounds like he was shooting booty shots from behind, which isn't decent, but surely not against the law.
What about the BK woman with the cup in her sweaty cleavage-of-eternity? Did they have to get her permission?
I call creepy. (Perhaps. A nice tush and generous hips are eye candy to me.) But not illegal.
Posted by: LimeGreenLizard | Feb 3, 2010 6:12:01 AM
Hey, it's Austin, TX.
They have a severe Identity crisis.
They don't know if they're Liberal or
Conservative, and act like they never
heard of libertarian.
If this is upheld, it will put Private
Investigators out of business, and force
law-abiding cops to get a warrant for
surveillance.
Posted by: Krash | Feb 3, 2010 6:23:11 AM
What's next?
A review process by the content police before letters can be submitted at OS&RR??
Apologies to Texas readers here, but damn,,,,,,,,,spread legs,,extract heads.
Posted by: thomas | Feb 3, 2010 6:36:08 AM
Three cheers for the last straight boy in Austin!
hip, hip hurray!
Posted by: MidtownCoog | Feb 3, 2010 6:51:30 AM
Well in Austin's defence, if this story had been about Wisconsin, the pictures would have been taken of bodies in his freezer.
Posted by: Sigh | Feb 3, 2010 7:00:34 AM
@LGL and lester
The reason he took pictures of these girls with their clothes on is due to the lack of sex education at his HS. How was he to know there was something underneath?
Posted by: Bill | Feb 3, 2010 7:04:56 AM
So, when he shoots someone, is that because they don't teach hunter safety classes?
Posted by: jj | Feb 3, 2010 7:04:59 AM
Couple of things –
If the girls were on public property, no consent needed.
Also, Lake Travis is not really Austin, it is one of these little conservate burbclaves that surrounds the city.
Posted by: johnjohn | Feb 3, 2010 8:01:58 AM
That's a lame excuse for being mildly pervy. But taking pictures of girls is legal as long as the photos were taken in a public place and the girls weren't unclothed.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Feb 3, 2010 8:30:51 AM
BS-o-meter at maximum
Posted by: Lambiepie | Feb 3, 2010 8:46:33 AM
Post a comment
Although we're used to seeing big predators attack smaller prey, nature features us animals that defy this convention.
From extremely venomous creatures like the blue-ringed octopus to ferocious beasts like the hyena to tiny killers like mosquitoes, these animals prove that they can take on much larger creatures, whether it's for defense or to get a feeding out of it.
Check out these relatively small animals that are a force to be reckoned with.
Guest Passes let you share your photos that aren't public. Anyone can see your public photos anytime, whether they're a Flickr member or not. But! If you want to share photos marked as friends, family or private, use a Guest Pass. If you're sharing photos from a set, you can create a Guest Pass that includes any of your photos marked as friends, family, or private. If you're sharing your entire photostream, you can create a Guest Pass that includes photos marked as friends or family (but not your private photos). Learn more about Guest Passes!
Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi may spread her legs for the camera, but she does not spread her legs for the camera: the crotch-flashing “Jersey Shore” star denies she’s the subject of any nude photos or videos being hawked to tabloids. “Like i said before about my supposed ’sex tape’…There are no nude pictures nor will there ever be,” she recently tweeted. “The tabloids just love Snook gossip.” That’s not stopping Radar from providing a steamy description of what they say they saw:
The stills and video leave nothing to the imagination, as she is wearing only a smile. In one photo she is in her bedroom, on her knees, with one hand on the ground and the other holding the rail of the bed frame. She is looking at the camera with her head tilted slightly. Her spot-it-anywhere fingernail polish is plainly visible. Another shot is too graphic to describe. And if it’s not Snooki in the photos then she has an identical twin!
As damning as the matching fingernail polish sounds, we wouldn’t be surprised if there were quite a few “identical twins” running around the bridge-and-tunnel crowd. With Snooki barely batting an eyelash at the rumors, it’s time for someone to put up or shut up.
[Photo: WireImage]
Tags: flickr, Images, last days, photos, Pics, Pix, pix photos
microrelease