History of Feminism
Related: About this forumHigh 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.
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.
Robertson’s lawyers defended his actions by arguing the photos were a matter of free speech.
Upskirt photos are becoming increasingly common with the spread of camera phones, but the law is slow to catch up with new technologies. Under most voyeurism laws, women must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is difficult to prove when she is in public. The Massachusetts court is hardly the first to acquit men who take these photos; perpetrators in Oklahoma, Indiana, and Washington have all been cleared by judges because the laws on the books did not apply. In response to one case in which a man legally took upskirt photos of a 10-year-old girl, Indiana lawmakers passed an upskirt ban in 2011. Other states have considered but not passed similarly updated voyeurism laws.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/05/3365631/massachusetts-upskirt-legal/
So, the Broken Men of the MRAs can now rest freely that their first amendment rights are not being trampled when they take panty shots of underage girls... heck, we may even have a few DUers move to MA for this freedom alone...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)This is one of those cases that annoys the Hell out of people where lawyers elevate the parsing of the law over the intent of the law.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)NOT.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Double sided tape to attach to shoe $1.50
Shaking hands with the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, Priceless.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)One word leaped immediately to mind. They don't call 'em that for nothing.
Refuse to post in it Open Forum. PM me if you thought the same thing.
BuckIA
(76 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to joke about women unknowingly getting upskirt pics taken on a feminist forum.
I hope the admins are paying attention.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Kinda creepy, little fella...
seaglass
(8,173 posts)The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said today that a state law intended to prohibit “Peeping Tom” voyeurism of completely or partially undressed people did not apply to people who take pictures of people who are fully clothed.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo said this afternoon that the Legislature would immediately begin looking at ways of closing the loophole in the law.
“The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law. The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today’s technology immediately,” DeLeo said in a statement.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as a general rule, criminal statutes can only be enforced on their letter, not on violations of the spirit of the law.
they should enact stiff prison sentences and civil rights of action, and put perps on the sex offender list
seaglass
(8,173 posts)Mass. Lawmakers Rework Measure That Permitted 'Upskirt' Photos
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/03/06/286690512/read-it-and-rate-it-court-rules-upskirt-photos-are-legal
Updated at 1:30 a.m. ET Friday:
Lawmakers in Massachusetts on Thursday approved legislation meant to close loopholes in the state's peeping Tom law. The action came one day after the state's highest court ruled a man didn't violate state law when he took cellphone photos up the skirts of women on Boston's subway.
The legislation says anyone who "photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils" another person's sexual or intimate parts without that person's consent would face a misdemeanor charge and a maximum penalty of two-and-a-half years in jail and a $5,000 fine, according to The Associated Press.
Gov. Deval Patrick has said he would sign the legislation.
Response to LanternWaste (Original post)
ismnotwasm This message was self-deleted by its author.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)They're apparently was NO law against this at all, and what actually happened is they signed it into law as a misdemeanor, so the title here is misleading.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014748069
(CNN) -- Modern-day peeping Toms in Massachusetts, the sorts who get their thrills snapping "upskirt" photos on crowded subways, now have their behavior criminalized.
Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill Friday, according to his office, making photographing or recording video under a person's clothing -- think down a blouse or up a skirt -- a misdemeanor.
"The legislation makes the secret photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveiling of another person's sexual or other intimate parts, whether under or around a person's clothing or when a reasonable person would believe that the person's intimate parts would not be visible to the public, a crime," Patrick's office said in a prepared statement.
The crime is punishable by up 2½ years in jail or a fine of up to $5,000.
In addition, the law states that "whoever videotapes or photographs, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a child" faces a sentence of 2½ to 5 years and up to a $5,000 fine. The law goes into effect immediately.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/justice/massachusetts-upskirt-bill/index.html
