Monday, June 19, 2017

The Dani Mathers Case Has Nothing to Do With "Body Shaming"

I've been meaning to write something about this one for a while now.  Sorry if this is last month's news, but I haven't had much free time to spend with the blog lately.

Former Playmate Dani Mathers was convicted last month of violating section 647(j)(3)(A) of the California Penal Code. That law makes it a misdemeanor to violate someone's privacy by secretly photographing or videotaping them while the victim is a partially or fully undressed. Ms. Mathers had snapped a picture of an older woman showering at the gym, then posted the picture to social media with a derisive comment about the woman's physique.

The news media has completely missed the point with this story. The articles I've read keep referring to the conviction as a case of "body shaming", like Ms. Mathers' crime was the act of publicly ridiculing someone for being overweight or unattractive. That's completely wrong. It is not a crime to insult or ridicule fat people. If Ms. Mathers had snapped a picture of a fat person in a public place, posted the picture on social media and captioned the photo with a comment about the subject's weight, there would be no crime. If you're in public, you have almost no "reasonable expectation of privacy". Strangers may photograph you, post those pictures online and comment about your physical appearance. There are some exceptions (using a hidden camera to peek up your skirt, or using the photos commercially, etc.), but I'll save that discussion for another post.

The crime here was the act of intruding upon the subject's "reasonable expectation of privacy". The important fact in this case was that the older woman was photographed without her permission, while she was undressed, in a place where she reasonably understood that she would not be photographed (in a shower at the gym).

If Ms. Mathers had snapped a picture in the shower without the subject's consent and captioned the photo with a positive, complimentary comment like, "Look at this gorgeous grandmother! She looks great for 70!", she would still be guilty of the same crime.

The Dani Mathers case had everything to do with "intrusion upon privacy" and nothing to do with "body shaming".

If you or a loved one has questions about privacy, "revenge porn" or public use of your image, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney