Author Topic: Mass. Supreme Court: secretly photographing under woman's skirt is okay  (Read 910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,355
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Massachusetts Judge: Secretly Photographing Up a Woman’s Skirt Okay
 
by Betty Butter • 5 March, 2014 • Crime • 2 Comments


Tweet2 Share7 Reddit0 0 0 Email0 Share9



Now here is something for feminists to get riled up about.  A Massachusetts judged has rule that there is no law against secretly photographing up a woman’s skirt.

From The Boston Globe:


Shooting photos up a woman’s skirt is legal in Mass., SJC rules

By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff, March 05, 2014

The state’s highest court says “upskirting,” the practice of secretly photographing under a woman’s skirt, is not prohibited by state law.

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.

The ruling came in the case of a man who allegedly took photos under the dresses of women on Green Line trolleys.

The court focused on the language of the law, which prohibits secret photography of “a person … who is partially nude.”

“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering [private] 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 said in a unanimous ruling written by Justice Margot Botsford.

The court said Suffolk County prosecutors, who argued that the Peeping Tom law should apply, had a “flawed” interpretation of the law.

The high court ruling reversed a Boston Municipal Court judge’s denial of a motion to dismiss by Michael Robertson.

Trolley riders alerted MBTA Transit Police in August 2010 that a man appeared to be taking photographs of women, including one instance in which he appeared to be attempting to photograph a woman’s crotch area, the court said.

Transit Police set up a decoy operation the next day involving a female undercover officer wearing a skirt. Robertson allegedly took pictures of her, focusing on her crotch area, and he was arrested, the court said.

Robertson was charged in December 2011. In 2012, he filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. It was denied. But he took his appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court, which agreed with him.

The court said the core of prosecutors’ argument was “the proposition that a woman, and in particular a woman riding on a public trolley, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in not having a stranger secretly take photographs up her skirt. The proposition is eminently reasonable, but [the law] in its current form does not address it.”

Read more here

Now, this is what I call equality.  After all, would it be illegal to shoot a photo up the skirt of a Scottish man in a kilt?  I think not.

Here is my suggestion for feminists, like gubernatorial candidate, Wendy Davis, who believes their is a war on women:  Put on a gas mask, don’t you know there is a war on women?

Read more at http://blurbrain.com/massachusetts-judge-secretly-photographing-womans-skirt-okay/#mtHo6BE7yWM6ZQjs.99
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 09:11:04 AM by rangerrebew »
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
This is completely symbolic of how screwed up we have become as a nation. Do we actually need laws, courts, etc. involved in determining whether there is anything wrong with taking photos up women's skirts? In times past a kick in the teeth and a mangled camera would have dealt with the question

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
So I presume "peeping" is allowed?
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline rb224315

  • Custom Title goes here
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • Personal Text goes here

I suppose the law can now be interpreted such that an a$$ whipping administered to the perp for doing things like this is no longer considered assault? 

Plaintiff:  "Your honor, I didn't hit him, he ran into my fist."

Judge:  "Well, uh, yeah, uh the law doesn't apply in this case because the voyeur's face ran into the defendant's stationary fist."
rb224315:  just another "Creepy-ass Cracka".

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,355
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Massachusetts is a very liberal state, as I remember.  You know, those liberals that are concerned about the safety of women? :3:
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 31,667
It won't matter much longer.

The speed this country's going, it won't be long before all women will be wearing pants or culottes.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"I am responsible for what I say.  I am not responsible for what you understand."  ...me

Offline SlapLeather

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
It won't matter much longer.

The speed this country's going, it won't be long before all women will be wearing pants or culottes.

Don't fool yourself. It will be hi-jabs and berkas. 

Won't the women and girly-men be surprised!

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,278
  • #ToldYouSo
This is completely symbolic of how screwed up we have become as a nation. Do we actually need laws, courts, etc. involved in determining whether there is anything wrong with taking photos up women's skirts? In times past a kick in the teeth and a mangled camera would have dealt with the question

we need it because we're (supposed to be) a nation of laws.  and criminal punishment should only be inflicted within the strict letter of the law.  If Mass. law doesn't currently provide punishment for this conduct - which I agree is reprehensible - then the solution is for Mass. to enact a well-considered law that addresses the issue.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,278
  • #ToldYouSo
So I presume "peeping" is allowed?

Not if the person being peeped on is all or partially nude.

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
we need it because we're (supposed to be) a nation of laws.  and criminal punishment should only be inflicted within the strict letter of the law.  If Mass. law doesn't currently provide punishment for this conduct - which I agree is reprehensible - then the solution is for Mass. to enact a well-considered law that addresses the issue.

nope. don't need a law for every possibility in society. that is how we got started down the rabbit hole and results in a completely nuetered and unable to think mass of people dependent on someone else.

Offline rb224315

  • Custom Title goes here
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • Personal Text goes here
Re: Mass. Supreme Court: secretly photographing under woman's skirt is okay
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2014, 09:33:38 PM »
nope. don't need a law for every possibility in society. that is how we got started down the rabbit hole and results in a completely nuetered and unable to think mass of people dependent on someone else.

Agree 100%.  A law can't be written for every single possible offense.  Next thing you know, we'll be discussing the meaning of the word "is".  Taking this case as an example, what does the plaintiff have to do, describe in detail what, for her, constitutes being fully clothed/partially nude?  Then, does she have to argue "well, your honor, I normally wear a slip under this dress but didn't that day.  Therefore, I was partially nude and you have to convict this pervert"?
rb224315:  just another "Creepy-ass Cracka".


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf