Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mfcorey1

(11,001 posts)
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 03:49 PM Mar 2014

High Court Rules That Upskirt Photos Are Legal In Massachusetts

It is not against the law to secretly take photographs up a woman’s skirt in Massachusetts, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday. The court dismissed charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested by Boston transit police for taking photos and videos up multiple women’s skirts or dresses on the subway.

The judges sympathized with the notion that a woman should be able to have a reasonable expectation not to have secret photos taken up her skirt when she goes out in public, but ruled that current state law does not address that. Massachusetts’ “Peeping Tom” laws, as written, only protect women from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Since upskirt photos are taken of fully clothed women in public, they don’t count, according to the court.

“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is `partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” the court wrote.

Robertson’s lawyers defended his actions by arguing the photos were a matter of free speech.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/05/3365631/massachusetts-upskirt-legal/

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

shenmue

(38,506 posts)
3. Then kicking the shit out of the perv with the camera should be legal
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 03:54 PM
Mar 2014

It's only fair. We don't want double standards, right?

Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

TheCowsCameHome

(40,168 posts)
7. We wouldn't want him here.
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 04:01 PM
Mar 2014

Keep him the hell out of Massachusetts. Not that I want him on the SCOTUS, either.

Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
11. So, do i have to be undressed in a dressing room or bathroom before the peeping
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 04:15 PM
Mar 2014

tom law would apply? What would keep the perp from saying that "yes, she was in her bathroom, but she was fully dressed, so my peeking doesn't count"?

Do peeping tom laws also protect men?

Orrex

(63,215 posts)
13. According to the ruling, if you were undressed on the subway, it would be peepng
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 04:22 PM
Mar 2014

Let that be a lesson to the wimminfolk.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
14. Well yes, he is a disgusting creep, but it turned out that there was no law against what he did.
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 04:28 PM
Mar 2014

What we want is for the legislature to pass a law banning this behavior, as opposed to judges making up laws as they go along. I don't blame the court for this ruling.

 

bigdarryl

(13,190 posts)
15. This is just as bad as that Pastor telling women not to wear panties in church
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 04:37 PM
Mar 2014

Sounds like a bunch of perverts on that court that probably are looking up females skirts when they get a chance

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
17. No, its a bunch of judges doing exactly what
Wed Mar 5, 2014, 05:29 PM
Mar 2014

they are supposed to do - apply the law as it exists to the facts of the case. If the law isn't what it should be, then by all means change the law. But don't bitch about judges not forgetting what their job is and instead pulling RW verbal gymnastics to ignore the law and say whatever they think it should be - that's exactly what people like Scalia and Thomas do all day long.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»High Court Rules That Ups...