Gentlemen:
Here is the section of the NJ Privacy law that I was referring to and is relevant:
c. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.
Here is a link to the entire law:
http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-...tice/14-9.html
This law does not prohibit the taking of pictures in a public place, like on a federally owned beach, if you can see it, you can take a picture of it. This law just prohibits the showing of those pictures to anyone else without the specific permission to do so from the person in the photo, if that person's "intimate parts" are shown.
As to news and sports magazine photos, there aren't many legitimate news or sports publications, TV reports, news websites etc. that would be likely to publish pictures of a person's "intimate parts" or of people engaged in "sexual contact" so this law would not impact them, unless they did.
It should also be noted that New Jersey has a "Right of Publicity Law." Simply put, that law prohibits the use of a person's "image" for commercial purposes without permission. It's very similar to having an automatic copyright on your own picture. To cut to the chase: it "could" be possible that a person whose picture is posted on a commercial website could sue for use of their image without their permission. It's civil, not criminal law, but there have been substantial monetary awards in cases involving that law. Without going into all the legal weeds and reasons, photos used for news purposes are exempt.
Publicity law here:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-...-publicity-law
If you google NJ privacy law and defense lawyers you'll find that some of them have pages devoted to explaining these specific laws
Here is a link to one of them:
http://www.marainlaw.com/page.php?here=privacy
Mostly, these laws are being used in "revenge porn" cases, but a Gunnison beach goer who finds their "intimate parts" picture posted on the internet without their permission "could" try to make use of them too. My caution was that if the picture was taken at Gunnison, then there is that New Jersey connection that could allow the law to apply.
All this legal stuff got extensive coverage several years ago as a result of the Rutgers suicide case, but the laws have actually been on the books since before that.
I made the post above almost a year ago, and it seems nobody took exception to it until today. In addition to the defense lawyers websites I mentioned, I have read other postings and discussions of these two laws on other websites, and in news publications, and heard radio discussions concerning them and I am not alone in thinking that it is wise to avoid potential problems with them. If you spent any time paying attention to that Rutgers trial, all this was hashed over again and again in the news reports.
Remember, it's the showing or posting of the "intimate parts" pictures without the permission of the person in them, not the right to take them in a public place, that is the specific violation of these laws.
Sorry to be such a downer.