News

Video voyeurism bill passes Assembly

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• Cable bill reaches governor's office (December 13, 2007)
• Mayor dislikes cable proposal (November 13, 2007)
• Campaign Finance legislation halted (February 27, 2002)
• Assembly to pass cable bill, try to up competition (May 8, 2007)
• Budget repair bill to be debated in state Assembly (March 14, 2002)

Also by Morgan Felchner:

• News Analysis: Pipe-bomb suspect and American Taliban have similarities in beliefs, actions (May 10, 2002)
• Nearly 300 colleges still accepting students for fall (May 8, 2002)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

Photographing or videotaping nude people without their knowledge or consent may soon become illegal under a bill passed by the state Assembly Tuesday.

Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, sponsored legislation that could soon make illegal the photographing or photocopying of a picture if the nude person has not given consent.

“If somebody videotapes or photographs or makes a visual likeness while [a person] is naked in a circumstance where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or [if they are] sending [the photograph] over the Internet or photocopying it would be prosecuted under this bill,” Gundrum said.

The bill passed the Assembly unanimously and will now be sent to Gov. Scott McCallum to sign into law.

In 2000, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned a bill very similar to the current legislation on the basis that it was unconstitutionally overly broad.

“The reason it was overturned was because it would have banned the photocopying of artwork like Michelangelo’s David because you could not get consent, or if you wanted to photocopy a picture [of a] woman giving herself a breast exam for educational use where you don’t even know who the model is,” Gundrum said.

Gundrum was confident McCallum will sign the bill and that it will meet the constitutional burden.

“What’s different is this has an element of contemporaneousness in it; you have to be actually taking a picture or photocopying a picture where the person is not aware,” Gundrum said.

The bill includes exemptions to meet the constitutionality burden.

“If you take a picture of your kids in the bathtub to send to grandma, that would not be included in this,” Gundrum said.