General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHigh Court Rules That Upskirt Photos Are Legal In Massachusetts
It is not against the law to secretly take photographs up a womans skirt in Massachusetts, the states 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 womens 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 dont 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.
Robertsons 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/
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)It's only fair. We don't want double standards, right?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)but if I caught the person in the act of taking the photo, I sure would want to do that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)
alp227 This message was self-deleted by its author.
smokey775
(228 posts)not US Supreme Court.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Keep him the hell out of Massachusetts. Not that I want him on the SCOTUS, either.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)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)Let that be a lesson to the wimminfolk.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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)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)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.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Creepy people out there. Very, very creepy.