Yes, a kind of picture-taking was against the law in Texas…
“Improper photography” had been defined as arousing photography taken without consent. Yes, it was perhaps primarily first meant to simply stop peeping toms and such scofflaws. But vague wording meant enforcement could have overreached, and it could have been a dangerous precedent. Thankfully it’s been struck down.
Part of the Court’s reasoning:
“A statute is likely to be found overbroad if the criminal prohibition it creates is of “alarming breadth.” Such is the case with the current statute, the breadth of which has been accurately characterized as “breathtaking.” The statutory provision at issue is extremely broad, applying to any non-consensual photograph, occurring anywhere, as long as the actor has an intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire. This statute could easily be applied to an entertainment reporter who takes a photograph of an attractive celebrity on a public street. But the statute operates unconstitutionally even if applied to someone who takes purely public photographs of another for personal reasons with the requisite intent.”
The full story is here — written by the law professor who co-wrote the legal brief in the court case.