I think the Fox one was a pic where she was getting out of a car or something and accidentally flashed the world- I don't consider those "upskirt". When I think of upskirt I think of someone intentionally trying to get a camera under there like that guy who put a little camera in his shoe and would then put his foot under women's skirts

Getting underneath somebody's crotch requires invading their personal space. They have deliberately conflated this kind of harassment with line of sight photography taken at a distance, of celebrities dressed like prostitutes who don't have the sense to keep their legs together when getting out of a limo (often deliberately, back in the day when they knew it would generate attention). The latter kind of photo used to be advertised on the front of tabloid newspapers to a readership of millions of people, yet now it's treated as a sex crime which will put you on an offenders' register, to an opposition which numbers zero people. That's how far the window has shifted in favour of insane feminism.

The core of the whole idea is the simp notion that women don't have to be held responsible for exposing themselves and that men should be criminalised for unwanted attention. You can draw a clear through line from that to revenge porn and the 'staring laws' on UK trains. Why shouldn't it be illegal to look at women in public when they don't want it, if it's already illegal to photograph them at a distance in public or re-publish nude pics which were legally obtained? None of this is done to 'protect women' - if it was, they'd receive protection from brown rapists rather than embarrassing AI shoops. It's done to create another lever to control insufficiently servile men and the internet.