Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal
cold fjord writes with this CNN report: "Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing — a practice known as "upskirting" — prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law. The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude."
BRB got some photography to do.
The reaction to this will dwarf the reaction to all that NSA business. This is the pointless stuff that Americans really like to fight over.
"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,"
Police soon noted an uprise in kilt-wearing flashers~
Just collecting publicly available photons...
Obviously, I imagine an upskirt picture does not reveal any more than what you would see at a beach in any western country. I think the issue is that, a person being made to reveal more of herself than she is consenting to, to a person she does not know, and usually without her knowledge. It would be the equivalent of someone being forced to take off her skirt in public without her consent.
Also, what if the woman is not wearing any underwear? It is her business if she is, or is not, and by wearing a skirt she has a reasonable right to privacy in that matter.
- Tempestdata
I can't really say the ruling is wrong or bad. Instead, and quoting from TFA, "If the statute as written doesn't protect that privacy, then I'm urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does."
Now, question to slashdotters who are not a lawyer but know the law better than me: wouldn't there be any other way the victims would be able to convict the photographer? Couldn't they claim that amounted to harassment or something? Or... well... anything?
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
No the way I would go about getting a new law named after myself, but to each his own.
Well if it really isn't actually illegal except at the subjective assessment of a particular judge, then isn't the ruling correct, and the change of law an appropriate next step? Better to utterly stamp this thing out than leave any room in the law for weaselling.
Myu:
The judges simple pointed out that under current law taking these pictures is legal. That is their job. What is needed is for the appropriate laws to be rewritten.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
So what's the difference between this and photographing a woman in her underwear though her window, or the ethical difference between this and molesting the woman on a bus?
A revision of the law isn't what's called for here, it's an end to the Boy's Club system and judges who will seriously argue against rights for women.
Remember, if you are out in public you have no expectation of privacy, and therefore can be photographed -- at any angle.
Indeed. This is one of those things that should be very clear without any room for error. Either the person tried taking the photo (success irrelevant) and is guilty, or didn't try and is innocent. There shouldn't be a middle ground.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
wouldn't there be any other way the victims would be able to convict the photographer? Couldn't they claim that amounted to harassment or something? Or... well... anything?
Catch the perv in the act, you might be able to convict them in the court of public opinion with some good ol' fashioned shaming.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
i think it should be illegal and the guy was a pervert,
BUT
at least here in NYC some women wear extremely short skirts in the summer time even when they have to go up the stairs in a public place like the subway so its almost like they are showing off. not saying its their fault and i love the see through pants they were to show off their thongs and ass. just sayin
In the US if you are in a public place then you can be photographed (or videoed) without your consent and the photographer can do almost anything that he or she wants with the photographs. One of the few exceptions is if the photographers are using the pictures for commercial purposes, but even that is somewhat fuzzy. Perhaps the victims could claim that the photographers deliberately caused them emotional anguish, then they may be able to pursue a civil suit. Not a lawyer. Do not play one on tv. Consult real legal counsel.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Dateline: 3/56/2014 5:24PM
The Massachusetts Legislature just passed a revision to the law which has now been sent to the Governor for his signature.
http://www.wcvb.com/news/upskirting-bill-passes-moves-on-to-governors-desk/24845520
the liberal bias is the guy didn't really mean to do it and he is really sorry so we should let him off
like if you kill someone with your car in NYC going 20 over the limit, running stop signs, etc. the cops write you a ticket for failure to yield or whatever and let you go. the EMS takes the dead guy to the morgue
I'm not expert on Saudi Arabian law, but I gotta strong feeling that upskirt photos are not a problem in that country. You know, cause burkas.
Maybe they have cameras in their shoes...
This is a sick practice, no matter who is doing it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's time to remove these judges.
Nonsense. A judge's job is to interpret the existing law, not make stuff up to conform to what the law should be. If anyone should be removed, it is the state legislators, and it is the voters' job to remove them.
This is a liberal interpretation of the law - verging on anarchist! Following the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law tends to be a conservative tactic.
But seriously, how can this even be political issue? This is serious, blatant encroachment on a woman's civil liberties! It's a ruling that protects nobody and puts women at risk.
The fact that "Americans" get uptight about up-skirts is a healthy expression of the desire for privacy. The correct thing is not to criticise them for it, but to show them how the government and the businesses it works for are guilty of similarly intrusive behaviours.
If you don't care about someone taking random photographs of your undercarriage, that's your personal feeling on the matter. If you tell other people they shouldn't care either, you're just as bad as the pro-NSA anti-privacy advocates.
No, It's time to put GoPro's on my shoes and head to Boston!
In C++, your friends can see your privates.
Dateline: 3/6/2014 5:24PM
The Massachusetts Legislature just passed revisions to the exist laws which has already been passed to the Governor for signature.
http://www.wcvb.com/news/upskirting-bill-passes-moves-on-to-governors-desk/24845520
They didn't rule that taking the photos was legal (i.e. you have a right to do it which cannot be abridged); they ruled it wasn't illegal (i.e. the legislature hasn't banned it even though it's within their power to do so).
That is their job.
But when they do their job in a way that people disagree with, it's somehow time for impeachments and pitchforks and tomatoes.
Last week someone here referred to something as "unconstitutional". I pointed out that the Supreme Court, whose job it is to determine the constitutionality of things, felt otherwise. They stated that those 5 Supreme Court judged should be arrested and tried for Treason. Seriously.
This is a good thing for anybody who believes in the rule of law. Laws should be written to clearly put those governed on notice as to what behavior is prohibited. Pervy or not, if the photographer was within the actual letter of the law, he shouldn't be be held criminally liable for doing something which was not prohibited. The solution is not to "interpret" the law to extend beyond its text; the solution is to fix the bad law.
If laws can be "interpreted" to go beyond their plain meanings, then it becomes difficult for those subject to them to figure out what is prohibited. Not only is it patently unfair to hold someone accountable for an action that wasn't listed as prohibited, there is a strong constitutional precedent for holding it "void for vagueness." See, e.g., Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926):
[T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Write a law to make it illegal to photograph anyone without their written consent, or in the case of a government agency a warrant.
it solves the upskirt issue, the paparazzi problem, and ends those annoying red light cameras.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And the language defining that particular offense essentially excluded people in public places. Someone nude or partially nude in a public place, well, that's their choice and they will probably be looked at and it should not constitute a peeping tom violation on my part if I stare at them. And fully clothed people are even less protected in public.
The law will need to be carefully crafted so that it prevents upskirts without preventing casual photos in public places, etc. But that's the problem with a law. If you try to make a law that allows innocuous behavior while punishing "deviant" behavior, you will be unable to define all the "deviant" behavior without infringing on perfectly innocent behaviors.
Arg. Not "charges was".
or, people could get over it. if it bothers you, cover it up. we don't need anymore laws.
....charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity.
....state law "does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA."
While your argument is that it should be cut and dry illegal; the reality is: this specific law does not make it illegal. It has nothing to do with the judge, and everything to do with the way the law is written. The judge doesn't need to be removed, the law needs to be better written considering current technology.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
This is the opposite situation. You're asking people to punish someone for something that is not (yet) illegal. The person that should be punished is the politicians for writing bad laws.
Just to emphasize your point: the judge in this case is not trying to let the accused off the hook: he/she is pointing out a hole in Massachusetts law.
I'm totally not a lawyer, but I live in Massachusetts and spent some time reading the law today so that makes me an expert. As far as I can tell, upskirt doesn't fall within any of the following Mass sexual crimes:
Rape: Rape in Mass requires penetration.
Indecent assault and battery: Requires physical contact.
Sexual harassment: is specific to the workplace.
Peeping tom: requires that the victim be partly undressed.
Criminal harassment: must be repeated on three occasions.
Unnatural and lascivious acts: applies to sexual acts in public.
It really does seem to me that as far as criminal law goes, upskirting really does fall between the cracks of Massachusetts law.
Maybe they have cameras in their shoes...
. . . please don't give Google any more ideas about where to mount their glasses . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Yes, so i'll get a 6" round pipe, 1 foot long, and attach it to my zipper, sticking straight out (maybe a slightly upward angle). I'll let my junk rest in the pipe. As long as you don't look down the pipe, you won't see my junk.
This is the equivilent of a skirt, just at a little different angle. (most of the time, but not always).
Also, if I hold my camera 2.5 feet off the floor, looking up, I can see up a gals skirt. That is also the same viewing angle that a two year old boy has. A woman can't go around corrupting minors and at the same time get all uppity about her fashion statement and privacy. A woman who wants the privacy needs to cover it up, and not just from a few angles. You can't have iot both ways.
Of course, my preference is, ...uncovered.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
You're right, but then who's going to protect all those prudish conservative women from the pathetically perverse conservative men? Apparently you think "liberal" and "progressive" are synonyms for "protecting women from men acting like pieces of shit," and ...wait... you're right, they are... cause conservatives don't seem to give a damn about women other than having them around as second class, barely citizen, breeding chattel with no rights of their own.
I was going to mod you, but there isn't one for "dumb fucking cunt."
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Who says that government is inefficient?
Why is Snark Required?
Agreed. A judge isn't supposed to decide what's right or wrong, but rather what's legal or illegal. Judges are just supposed to interpret the laws as written. If there's no law against something, then a judge has no recourse but to deem that thing legal. Even if any rational person would find it in poor taste.
It's then the job of Congress (aka the legislators, aka the law makers) to make a law that rectifies the issue. So expect results sometime between now and Judgement Day. Unless, of course, some senator (or senator's daughter) gets some upskirt pictures taken. Once lawmakers actually feel the effects, the law will be passed so quickly, it might just be signatures on the back of a napkin.
This signature is false.
So this ruling is implying that if these people were nude in public it would be illegal to take photos of them?
But since they were wearing cloths, it is legal to take nude photos of them?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Right, but this whole issue is about what's public or private. If I take a photo of you walking on the other side of the street, yeah, you're in public and that's fine. If I thrust a camera down your pants and take a snap though, I think any sane person would agree that what I photographed was entirely private. The positioning of the camera, and intent of the photo, matters... or at least it should. But the word of the law, here, is not matching the intent; it's treating obviously private circumstances as public.
So, yeah, unfortunately it sounds like what the guy is doing *is* legal, the judge was right in their judgement, and that law needs to be changed right freaking now.
They could print an EULA on their panties. "By photographing these panties you agree..."
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I would guess simple harassment is a slap on the wrist and a small fine.
Through in the sex crime portion and suddenly it is a felon (or at least a gross misdemeanor) and possible jail time and potential permanent registration on a sex offenders list.
Now, to get this court ruling pass in Japan....
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Not a lawyer. Do not play one on tv.
But it sounds like you dated one in college.
The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude."
What if they were? What if they're not wearing panties, what then?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
. . so people cant wear skirts anymore? Sharia Law is over there . . . .
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
As I read the ruling, it would be illegal if there were nudity involved - so does this mean it's legal until somebody isn't wearing panties?
I agree with you that it is not really a political issue, nor should it be one. However the conservative wing of our country (and I mean to say conservative not republican since they are not one and the same) has gotten so far right that anything which might actually help anyone they just oppose out of gut instinct. I don't think they are anti-woman per se, it is just that they are anti "anything one of those evil liberals might be for". So if making upskirt pics illegal would be supported by a liberal, they will oppose it even if they would agree with it anyway. Remember this is supposedly the group of people concerned with family values and dressing modestly, but as soon as the liberals are on board they have to react.
In summary, liberals are against this not because they are liberals, but just because they are decent people who know what consent means. The conservatives then take a contrary stance based on a percieved political divide over the issue, thus making it a political issue. Fascinating stuff.
-AndrewBuck
No, you've got it wrong. The women were considered fully clothed because no private parts were exposed. Partial nudity requires "private" parts to be uncovered, not any part of your body. That's precisely why this guy got off--despite his creepy photograph, he wasn't photographing partially nude people--he was photographing fully clothed ones. The law (apparently) doesn't criminalize photographing fully clothed people.
That's because it isn't actually their job to do that. They arrogated that power to themselves.
The actual power given to them by the constitution is the usual judicial power. Or in other words: guilty, not guilty, adjudication withheld, case dismissed, etc. They have original jurisdiction in cases that involve the states, ambassadors and so forth. Nowhere does the constitution say or imply they can declare a law unconstitutional. That is done by the constitution itself. That's the whole damned point of it.
The consequence of allowing these judges to determine constitutionality has been (just to mention a few) inversion of the commerce clause, violations of almost the entire bill of rights, usurpation of states rights by the feds, and more.
The constitution is written in plain English. If it proves insufficient to the cause, it can be amended. The very first amendment it ought to have is the holding of legislators accountable when they make laws that the constitution rules out. In the vast majority of cases, that's bloody obvious. For instance, "shall make no law" is crystal clear. So what does congress do? They make laws in that very area anyway. And the justices? They uphold these laws. It's no wonder the legal system is such a wreck. They aren't traitors; they're just criminals.
Quote from a Supreme Court ruling: "A black man posesses no rights that a white man must respect."
That the Supreme Court defines what is Constitutional is not a defensible position.
There are "courts" and then there's the Supreme Court. Once the SCotUS makes a ruling, it's settled for every other court, unless a jury specifically nullifies the law. ("Salus populi" and all that...) That makes such decisions much more final, and when that essentially-final ruling is viewed as unjust or against the law from any angle, either in letter or in spirit, then it turns into an emotional cry for "revolution". All other options for a "fair" ruling have been overruled, and jury nullification is such a long-shot that it will never happen. Thus the posts you describe.
Never corner a wounded animal. It has nothing to lose by fighting you to the death.
Photographing things publicly visible is fine, but what is inside of a dress is not publicly visible.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Not entirely true.
There is a law that says you can't photograph somebody inside a house (e.g., through a window) or in a similar place which is considered private property.
And the part of the body under the skirt can be considered to be in a private place.
You see, it is just how you interpret the law. The judge should do this in a way that conforms to expectations.
Following the law literally and blindly is not a good idea.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Further, the court specifically said they felt it SHOULD be illegal to take an 'upskirt' photo.
The hooplah over this is patently ridiculous and demonstrates the lack of ethics in modern journalism - or the desperation for pagehits, something we used to only see among bloggers.
My main concern is that in the rush to "fix" this, someone screws up the law and ends up making it unconstitutional or otherwise overly broad.
Please help metamoderate.
Write a law to make it illegal to photograph anyone without their written consent, or in the case of a government agency a warrant.
it solves the upskirt issue, the paparazzi problem, and ends those annoying red light cameras.
So you want to take a picture of your son/daughter playing soccer . . .
However one might consider this that the pictures were taken with the intent to disseminate. Unless they are disseminated without any profit being made then they are being used for commercial purpose. Hence if they are on a upskirt website they are being used for commercial purpose because the owners of those sites make revenue from adds by providing content. However I'm not sure how well his would actually stand up.
No, they have effective gender-slavery instead.
Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. He wrote the rules, not me.
You stay classy, Massachusetts.
Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
That is done by the constitution itself. ... If it proves insufficient to the cause, it can be amended.
So that basically comes back down to the legislative branch? If they passed the law, they are not going to argue that it is unconstitutional. If they don't like the lay, they can just create a new one that undoes a previous one, without any need to appeal to it being constitutional or not. There is a lot of middle ground between what is needed to get a law passed, and what is need for say the states to amend the constitution to undo something.
Catch the perv in the act, you might be able to convict them in the court of public opinion with some good ol' fashioned shaming.
Worked on Paul Reubens.
upskirting really does fall between the cracks of Massachusetts law.
That deserves a comic-sketch.
No, you're perfectly free to wear skirts but one of the consequences of wearing that garment is there is a risk someone may see (and by extension photograph) underneath it.
Note that choosing your undergarments with this risk in mind would render it a moot issue in both the obvious case of choosing undergarments you don't mid people seeing and the somewhat unintuitive case of making it illegal to take the photo if you go commando (as it would have been illegal if the subject were "partially nude").
people can wear skirts all they like, and choose how much or little they want to expose of themselves in public. if you re concerned about some out of focus dark weird angle shot of your panties, i'd suggest not wearing a skirt.
The tradition in English-speaking nations derived from Britain is that Laws define ILLEGALITY not legality. Therefore it may be the duty of a court to test an 'act' against the pre-existing list of laws to see if that 'act' corresponds to any of the lawful definitions of illegality. In this case, the court failed to find appropriate laws that defined the act of public photography, even with a clear lewd intent, as 'illegal'.
There is a darker side to this. Laws that restrict Joe Public have a nasty habit of restricting the 'authorities' as well. And Google stands behind the 'principle', backed by millions into the pockets of politicians, that what the eyes can legally see in public, a Google camera system should be able to legally film.
Usually 'upskirt' photography is punished using the catch-all "outraging public morality'. These broad laws were amongst the first- and are essential to reduce the pressure for mob justice seen in less civilised societies. The 'problem' with broad laws is that they may be subject to terrible abuse by local regimes that may have various axes to grind.
The 'problem' with narrow laws is that criminal types will exploit the cracks to create new forms of clearly anti-social behaviour.
And here's a question for you all. What about a person seemingly taking normal photographs, that exploit the transparency of certain clothing to Human invisible frequencies of light? Some dresses, and even under-wear are near perfectly removed by cameras that see in infra-red.
And what if TSA style body-scanning tech became available in a cheap camera form. Would you ban people from owning and using such sensors in public?
And what if vision algorithms were perfected that could 'imagine' the body beneath fairly form fitting clothing, and render a photo-real naked body based on video of a clothed person?
Although it isn't said openly, such laws really base themselves on how obvious, annoying and distressing the sexually motivated public photographer has been. But now prosecutors use a different strategy, seeking to suggest that the 'collection' of such imagery, regardless of 'awareness' of the 'victims' is enough to trigger a conviction. This means in most US states a prosecutor would expect to gain a conviction of a person who took 'reasonable' photographs of clothed women in public, and then used 'computer' methods in private to convert these into some form of naked imagery (without permission of the women), even if 'distribution' of these processed images was not involved.
Sex 'crimes' often have the dimension "the act really isn't a crime, but knowledge of the act makes it so". So a guy might fantasise about a woman at work, and pleasure himself in the bedroom thinking about this. BUT informing the woman the next day that this happened creates a clear potential societal problem- what earlier societies would have seen as an unacceptable breech of 'etiquette' rather than the direct breaking of a written law.
Behaving ourselves, for the greater benefit of society, is more than just observing written laws.
That is done by the constitution itself. That's the whole damned point of it.
The first amendment says that I can shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
The second amendment says that I can own an ICBM.
You seriously think that the constitutionality of everything is self-evident?
And if they ruled that a woman in a skirt qualifies as partially nude, they'd set a precedent that would allow women in skirts to be ticketed for indecent exposure.
you're extremely wrong. Read again, it says 'one or more of the private parts of the body', not 'one or more parts of the body'. (If you're not sure what "private parts" refers to, look it up, hint doesn't include arms, neck, or ankles). So, what the judges are saying is that under this particular law, the woman had to actually be partially nude to be considered partially nude. On the other hand, the prosecution argument could have been dangerous in exactly this way. If what in most circumstances is considered "fully clothed" can be called partially nude, it opens the door to applying this law Saudi style. The judges are right, law needs to be fixed. You just read things too quickly to know that you agree with the judges not the prosecutors.
Not as long as police can freely invade your privacy and record you and photograph you when you are in public. It has been well established, by police, that you do not have an expectation of privacy in public.
These clothes are chosen because they are sexy. They are sexy BECAUSE in certain moments and with certain movements you can see down the blouse and up the skirt and everyone knows it so choosing to wear these clothes is choosing to let random strangers catch a glimpse. People are allowed to photograph you in public, wearing whatever you've chosen to wear and doing whatever you've chosen to do in public.
If you don't want someone to see down your blouse, don't wear a blouse people can see down. If you don't want someone to see up your skirt, wear a long skirt or don't wear a skirt. Granted people seeing this in person is something you can change tomorrow by not wearing these things and the photos you can't change your mind on. But we shouldn't be passing laws for no other purpose than to allow people to have fewer consequences when they make immodest wardrobe choices.
A law that blanket prevented photographing and recording people in public without explicit consent. That would be something I could get behind. Copyright being jointly shared on all images and video between the person making the photo/video and the people in them. That would be something I could get behind. Another law trying to define when you are and aren't entitled to privacy, spelling out certain circumstances and conditions. No thanks. The laws protecting individuals and preserving their personal rights should be broad, strongly worded, and strongly protected in our courts. It's the exceptions that should be narrow and specific.
Your sig: Ahahaha! How appropriate to the discussion.
A judge's job is to interpret the existing law, not make stuff up to conform to what the law should be....
I agree with that.
... that makes the legislature which write the laws .... OMG, PROGRAMERS! They're one of us!!
So judges are effectively a CPU, simply executing what's written. (GOTO but not DWIW.)
But then
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
A Massachusetts court applying laws as written, rather than making up some bogus progressive interpretation to satisfy their liberal bias? That IS news!
Examples of this?
We don't "make up bogus progressive interpretations." We take great pride in the commonwealth's constitution, which aside from being the first in the nation, predating the federal constitution, and in fact serving at its model, is also one of the most protective of individual rights.
Remember the whole gay-marriage thing, and how MA was one of the first? There's a reason. Our own constitution said we had to treat everybody equally. The courts said "yup, since the state holds the keys to marriage, we gotta treat everybody equally." Case closed. Done.
Also: stop abusing the term "liberal" in this context. Liberal, in a constitutional and individual freedom/liberty sense, usually more accurately describes the "conservative" side of the political spectrum. It's "conservatives" who keep trying to strip people of their voting rights, for example. It's "conservatives" who most often try to impose religion on others, violating separation of church and state (indeed, "god" was inserted into the pledge of allegiance by a republican, for example, in the mid-1900's.) It is "conservatives" who keep trying to advocate for an unequal tax base that vastly favors the rich. It's "conservatives" who keep trying to violate women's basic human rights (ie control of their bodies.) It's "conservatives" who keep trying to censor. It's "conservatives" who have presented the notion that some people are not deserving of the right of marriage. It's also usually "conservatives" who do most of the warmongering and have pushed a very aggressive foreign policy, especially around preemption.
All that is, constitutionally, quite "liberal"/radical.
Please help metamoderate.
. . so people cant wear skirts anymore? Sharia Law is over there . . . .
No. Get over your prudishness. If you want to flash it, like the girl in the microscopic Brazilian bathing suit that bent over to adjust her beach blanket last week in Miami, then flash it. If you're too prudish to do so other than when you've drunk half a bottle of alcohol to obliterate your self restraint, then that's your problem.
If you're not comfortable with wearing revealing clothing then don't wear it but don't whine that it's anyone's fault other than your own.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I guess it's time for me to get that Brazilian wax.
It's important to put your best foot forward.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The law doesn't prohibit people from wearing skirts, even micro skirts that reveal their unnderwear for public photography is allowed, they just can't claim legal defense if people takes a peek.
Sharia law on the other hand haves people executed over wearing anything less than a full tent. Stop trying to make a chicken of a feather, it makes you look like a moron(which probably is true)
It's the law in Saudi Arabia that women can be beaten to death by their husbands legally, that doesn't mean we should uphold that law. That 'iberal agenda' is to keep women from having their privacy violated without their consent.
If you think some laws should be ignored than you don't understand the core concept of "rule of law".
Unjust laws should be repealed or amended. That is not the same thing as "not-upheld".
...going commando in a skirt is now indecent exposure?
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Writing bad laws? What bad law are we talking about here?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's a ruling that protects nobody and puts women at risk.
And men in kilts! The horror!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
actually, you want news? this came up over four years ago in Florida.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2018781/posts
Agreed. A judge isn't supposed to decide what's right or wrong, but rather what's legal or illegal. Judges are just supposed to interpret the laws as written. If there's no law against something, then a judge has no recourse but to deem that thing legal.
My thought exactly. To me up-skirt photography and filming is a practice which if legislated in detail as illegal either will become far too broad in interpretation, creating too much of a slippery slope situation, or too narrow to have any effect beyond a politician being able to win votes for "thinking about the children."
There are times were simple acts of active social disapproval are far more effective and deterring than written laws ever can be. Up-skirt is one of them. Next time you see some one doing an up-skirt don't look away, look right at the person and make it clear you see him (or her) and do not approve. Social stigma often is a far better deterrent than any legislation, death penalty included.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
> Sharia Law is over there . . . .
I'm pretty sure Sharia law predate cameras by a good eleven or twelve centuries.
A bill has been sent to the governors office and he is expected to sigh.
It's Pub sponsored, so, you know, excessive prison time, but there you go.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
. . so people cant wear skirts anymore? Sharia Law is over there . . . .
What about windy days? Can we outlaw them, too.
And escalators. They often give people an eyeful of thigh (and not all of it is pretty, ew!)
Many upskirts will show less than a miniskirt or booty shorts. How will that factor in to the new law? Will the length of the skirt be taken into account?
So many questions....
No sig today...
Be careful of quickly passed bills. That almost always means no one read them.
n this case, the punishment is too much. 5 years in prison? how about lust a large fine and not spend money housing them?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
+1 Insightful.
No sig today...
Will be interesting if they also prohibit pictures of women in tight pants and low tops. I believe France has a law regulating how men are allowed to look at women
Conversely, if everyone agrees that people shouldn't own ICBMs or shout "fire" in a crowded theater (even though the latter was the reasoning used to suppress the speech of anti-draft protestors and had nothing to do with people actually shouting "fire"), then it shouldn't be that hard to convince 2/3rds of Congress to make an amendment granting the federal government the power to control those things. If they can't, then you'll just have to look to your state or municipality for regulation. Anything less than that is a subversion of the constitution and, by extension, the rule of law.
"The actual power given to them by the constitution is the usual judicial power. Or in other words: guilty, not guilty, adjudication withheld, case dismissed, etc."
In every common law jurisdiction, the duty of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, including applying it in ways that the lawmaker may not have intended. The constitution, while being supreme, is just another set of laws. Their job is not merely to preside over a trial, although in the common law tradition the concept of standing means that almost every case begins as a trial between a plaintiff and a defendant. And this is why so many of our rights are couched in technical terms relating to a trial.
What was unique about American judicial review was that in England the highest court in the land was the House of Lords, which coincidentally happened to be a constituent part of Parliament. In the United States, we had separate yet co-equal branches of government, so that an American court--and in particular an American Supreme Court--which applied the normal rules of the common law was all of a sudden able to override the legislature. When the House of Lords overrode the House of Commons by a crafty legal interpretation, it didn't technically diminish the power of Parliament. When SCOTUS does this, it's a slap in Congress' face. This, however, was not unforeseen by the founders, nor was it unforeseen by their critics.
This is one reason why I was sad to see England create a separate Supreme Court. Because their Supreme Court must also uphold the notion of Parliamentary Supremacy, it is now impossible for the judiciary to defend the English Constitution in the face of a law duly promulgated by Parliament. Whereas the House of Lords in both theory and practice accomplished this on several occasions; and even though the House of Lords must have assented to many of those laws in the first instance, it's often only after they've been applied that we see how poor and detrimental those laws were.
"The consequence of allowing these judges to determine constitutionality has been (just to mention a few) inversion of the commerce clause, violations of almost the entire bill of rights, usurpation of states rights by the feds, and more."
I'll give you that, just to be charitable. But the sword cuts both ways, and the opposite is _just_ as true. One such consequence has been stuff like inventing our modern notion of free speech. For well over 100 years free speech protections at both the state level and federal level were a complete joke. The courts gave free reign to legislatures to decide when it was appropriate to limit speech, which is how so many people--socialists, suffragists, abolitionists--were _legally_ thrown into jail merely for handing out literature or meeting together. Your entire notion of free speech--and now gun rights--is a complete and utter invention of your "activist" Supreme Court. They took what once was the prerogative of our national and federal legislatures and removed it from the normal electoral process.
"The constitution is written in plain English."
The constitution is not written in plain English. It's written in legalese. Much of it was lifted verbatim from law textbooks and famous cases. If you studied history or law, this would be painfully obvious to you.
I'm sure it's actually still illegal. What it's not, according to the actual case, is on the wrong side of the "anti-peeping tom" law. I'm guessing the prosecutor fucked up, tried to go for a charge with a bigger sentence, and couldn't make it stick.
and go long panties in the market!
This judgement should boost the economy by generating more womens' underwear sales.
You are correct and I was not, and I did a incorrect/horrible job of explaining myself in the 2nd statement. I still see this ruling as wrong for the same reason. They used a very ambiguous definition for partial nudity and the "in plain view" portion seems to be their merit for dismissal in this case. Their definition was the point of the the creepy uncle comment.
Their definition makes it legal to look down shirts as well as up skirt, because unless it's 'in plain view' it does not count. This is where it's a dangerous precedent as well, because you know... as long as you are not exposing all of something for everyone to see it's legal.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
They said that it had to be "exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," at the time the guy took the picture which is ambiguous. Since "exposed in plain view of his camera lens" did not count, you can do the math as to how this ambiguity works. I agree my 2nd statement is wrong, but the interpretation of their definition is not.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This case seems to have been taken the wrong direction from the very beginning. People shouldn't be able to photograph you in public and then publish those photographs without your permission. However, if the photos were for personal use only, then I don't understand what the concern is here. What are they going to ban next, the air jet bursts coming up from the floors of carnival funhouses?
The defense lawyer who argued this needs to have his balls removed.
Other articles on this subject have said the exact same thing. The ruling was made reluctantly, and only because the law was written in a way that upskirting couldn't be said to be illegal. (It is specifically illegal in other states.) A change of the law is in order.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
people can wear skirts all they like, and choose how much or little they want to expose of themselves in public. if you re concerned about some out of focus dark weird angle shot of your panties, i'd suggest not wearing a skirt.
Yes, but don't we want to encourage the wearing of skirts? It's practically the only bright spot about taking public transportation.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The legislative branch and the states. The states get to vote regarding amendments.
Apparently the law has already been passed. Lawmakers know how to take action that will put them in the headlines.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Catch the perv in the act, you might be able to convict them in the court of public opinion with some good ol' fashioned shaming
I'd be careful about trying that if I were them. The "perve", as you say, could just as easily (and plausibly, these days) say taking the film or photo was your own idea, to tease your boyfriend or something.
"Public shaming" can work both ways.
Following the law literally and blindly is not a good idea.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't give a whit about intention - I care about what's actually written. I think most programmers should be familiar with this concept.
The alternative is a completely, utterly unjust world where laws are fluid and impossible to comply with because there's a difference between their wording and their meanings. If the law says "it shall be illegal to do X" and I don't do X, then I should not have broken that law. I can't imagine living in a society that said "well, you didn't technically do X, but we don't like you anyway so it's off to jail".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The judges simple pointed out that under current law taking these pictures is legal. That is their job. What is needed is for the appropriate laws to be rewritten.
Yep... if the ruling was a comment on this /. I would mod it as insightful.
He noted that the gal was "dressed" to socially acceptable standards
and as such was not in a state of undress when photographed.
At issue is a dress code that can be immodest in common situations.
But in fact it is not immodest because she and a gazillion others dress
the same way. To solve it one solution would be the burka but
I have no clue what is up skirt of a burka so that may prove less
modest. There there is the Irish/Scottish kilt...
Perhaps Moms need a skirt check no different than the baseball
cup check ethic.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
The second amendment says that I can own an ICBM.
Perhaps you could argue that an ICBM is a bit too heavy to "bear", but for most of US history, artillery was privately purchased and donated to towns and cities for defense. IIRC as late as Teddy Roosevelt we'd go to war with artillery that just some guys bought, bought the mules to haul it, and brought with them to the war (in addition to what the army itself had, but that was often inadequate and the supplemental pieces were welcomed).
If you're uncomfortable with your neighbor owning an ICBM (I know I am), we can amend the constitution, using the mechanism provided. We should just creatively interpret it, because that is precisely what led to losing most of the protections in the Bill of Rights.
Because it's convenient to allow creative interpretation instead of actually amending the Constitution, we've lost much of the point of it all!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So you don't want the judges to follow the law as written, but to make it up as they go?
Learn to love Alaska
Yes but what does common sense say?
It may fall in the cracks as far as the law goes but i don't think the accused will do very well in a civil case. Murders have gone free only to have to cough up millions from being sued in civil court. I hope the women does bring a civil case too.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Go back to liberal commie land (reddit/tumblr) and stay there.
Oh noes - not a call for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! Say it isn't so, mister!
If the law didn't specify what "partial nudity" means, then I think the ruling is perfectly valid. What is partial nudity? Can someone go out in public "partially nude?" Can they be arrested for that?
I don't think it's fair to use one the standard differently. A person should not be partially nude while out in public.
The error here is not on the judge's part, but on the legislature's. If the legislature had better defined their terms, there wouldn't be ambiguity. If they had specified that these kinds of photos were illegal, there wouldn't be a question here. They did not, and so the judges (who are upholding the law, not their opinions of it) made the right call.
Even if it means a pervert is still on the streets.
We *shouldn't just creatively ...
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What's the status of upskirting in the other 51 states?
If it isn't (or wasn't) illegal in MA then what about WA, etc?
+1 Insightful
The whole point of the law was to outlaw the invasive photography known as "upskirts". Everyone is fine with a society in which people wear skirts but people don't do "upskirts". How can we make this happen?
The last sentence of the post you replied to addressed that...
The actual power given to them by the constitution is the usual judicial power. Or in other words: guilty, not guilty, adjudication withheld, case dismissed, etc. They have original jurisdiction in cases that involve the states, ambassadors and so forth. Nowhere does the constitution say or imply they can declare a law unconstitutional. That is done by the constitution itself. That's the whole damned point of it.
You need to really read Marbury v. Madison (1803). The Court really lays out the reason why they have to. The judges must hold every law up to the standards of the Constitution, if they do not judge the Constitutionality of laws, then the Constitution has no meaning, because Congress can pass any law they feel like, and there is no one else who can say, "Hey, I don't think that law is actually legal."
Without anyone to actually enforce the Constitution, it's a meaningless piece of paper.
The constitution is written in plain English.
That's actually, in many ways, the problem. If the Constitution were written out in far more formal language, there would be less wiggle room and thus less need for interpretation.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Have gnu, will travel.
Haha now that's clever.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Fucking A!
But then ... that makes the legislature which write the laws .... OMG, PROGRAMERS! They're one of us!!
I prefer to think of most legislatures as the idiot programmers who cause the rest of us pain, suffering, and more work but got the job because they are buddies with or related to the owners.
I agree with your points, but partial nudity by itself is perfectly ambiguous. The error is still with the judges who used this definition to claim it did not count as nudity.
All languages have ambiguity and it's nearly impossible to rule it out of legislature. In fact some of the best legislature in history is ambiguous intentionally (I'm sure you have read the founding documents for the USA). Language imperfections are why we are supposed to have judges with at least a shred of common sense. This one is not as bad as the judge accepting Clinton argument about the definition of "is", but it's up there.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"Their definition makes it legal to look down shirts as well as up skirt"
As a 6' tall Resident of Massachusetts, I'm very glad to hear that. I very often find myself looking down shirts despite having no intention to do so, because I am otherwise unable to look at many women at all from normal conversational ranges. If they had made it illegal for me to speak to women, that would have sucked. I actually can't make it through most days without doing that at least once.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I can't imagine living in a society that said "well, you didn't technically do X, but we don't like you anyway so it's off to jail".
Awesome. I'm so sick of the United States and their selective enforcement of laws. Where do you live?
Grow up.
Some women find it entertaining or exciting to wear a skirt with no panties. It's kind of a thing. Oh, and also, their boyfriends are near-unanimously supportive of this. Aside from that, it is really every woman's right to dress as she wishes, based upon the expectation of viewing-angle privacy that the world generally adheres to.
If creepos with tennis-shoe mirrors and pole-mounted cameras want to ruin it for the rest of us... well, then, they should be shot or put in jail. To wit; if my girl decides to stop occasionally going panty-less (exciting to both of us) because of a few pervs, then this idiotic up-skirt photography behavior should be stopped.
This is why we can't have nice things.
6' is not that tall, I have known plenty of people taller including my son that's 6'3 and they don't look down people's shirts. But hey, in MA you get to take photos in addition to peeking and even post them with less worry about being a criminal now. I doubt you will get long term dates by doing this and the rest of society will still think you are a pervert.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Micro skirts are the best, and make all other women in the area super jealous/angry/miffed/whatever.
The funny thing about micro skirts is that, at the beach, the average young woman is wearing a bikini that is more revealing than the micro-skirt (minus the skirt), yet no one complains.
There is a plac and a time for everything, I suppose.
If creepos with tennis-shoe mirrors and pole-mounted cameras want to ruin it for the rest of us... well, then, they should be shot or put in jail. To wit; if my girl decides to stop occasionally going panty-less (exciting to both of us) because of a few pervs, then this idiotic up-skirt photography behavior should be stopped.
The world doesn't revolve around your sex life, nor should it. Tell her to put some fucking clothes on when she goes out and she'll be fine.
Why should the rest of society run around preventing unintended consequences of women's (or anyone's, really) dumb personal choices? If she chooses not to plan ahead and ends up wearing short skirts without underwear while riding a train, whose fault is that?
True story, man pulls up to Canadian Customs in Sarnia Ontario,
customs : Where are you going?
man: going to Buffalo New York
customs : Do you have any weapons?
man: Well actually I have a cannon, 2 dozen cannon balls, 50 pounds of black powder and fuze on the trailor I'm pulling.
customs: Do you have any handguns?
man: No.
customs OK have a safe trip
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
A state law in Massachusetts, most states have passed specific upskirts laws as has the Federal Government, not sure about court rulings on these laws.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
That really depends on the wearer of said micro skirt.
If you're not comfortable with wearing revealing clothing then don't wear it but don't whine that it's anyone's fault other than your own.
You and I have two very different ideas of what constitutes a "skirt", if you consider skirts to be "revealing clothing".
If a judge wilfully undermines the rule of law, they should be impeached, disbarred, and tried for, probably not treason but something for sure.
The catch would be it would be next to impossible to prove they exercised bad faith short of them openly boasting about it.
You realize that the underwear is part of the reason why they take the photos - right?
There's a reason why girls doing the can-can wear underwear.
That's my understanding too
I admit this is a bit pedantic, but the judge was right because there is no ambiguity about the meaning of "partially nude". In the same light, secretly taking up-skirt photos does not make you guilty of committing murder.
Some here seem to think that the only types of skirts around are the ones that are so short that barely anything is hidden. Skirts come in different lengths. Perhaps the woman thought she was covered up and the skirt hiked itself up in just the right way so that something was visible. Perhaps the pervert just used shoe cameras, pretended to be stooping on the ground to tie his shoes, or some other ploy to take photos up women's skirts. The women obviously didn't consent to this so he shouldn't be allowed to do this.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that you don't get to walk around outside and then claim people taking your photograph are invading your privacy. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are walking outside, but there are limits to that. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy under their clothes. A woman wearing a skirt is not an invitation to take a photo up the skirt any more than a man wearing shorts is an invitation to take a photo up the shorts leg.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The first amendment says that I can shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
No, it doesn't. This is why we have so many misunderstandings as to what constitutes free speech in this country.
The point is that what apparently makes it a "dumb" personal choice is the threatening/shaming/actual violence that other people do when that choice has been taken. That is, the "dumbness" presumes that the person choosing is faced with the reality of violence.
That reality is something that needs to be challenged. "Preventing unintended consequences" is a rather facetious way of rephrasing "not actively threatening and attacking people for choosing what would otherwise be a perfectly safe choice in the absence of those threats and attacks". Seems like a perfectly fair thing to demand of a society, no?
The problem is that we need someone to decide what is Constitutional. Say it isn't the courts. It is Congress? If so then I know plenty of politicians (on both sides) who would decide that the First Amendment actually means you have the right to say anything you want - so long as you agree with them. i.e. Dissent is illegal.
Maybe it's the Executive Branch? All it would take then is one President to decide that signing an executive order suspending elections indefinitely is Constitutional.
The people? Good luck getting them to vote out Congressfolk or a President based on bad laws being passed. Not when they've got the difficult choice of watching Boy Band X on America's Got Talent or seeing who gets voted out on Survivor. And too many of the people who pay attention and actually are involved seem to think that a theocracy would be perfectly Constitutional.
So we need someone who will decide what is Constitutional and what isn't. The courts' purpose is to judge things so they seemed like the right choice. Is it perfect? Of course not. You could easily point to a dozen Supreme Court rulings that, given today's sensibilities, sound horribly unconstitutional. However, it's still better than letting Congress or the President decide.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Skirts should never be wider then they are tall.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Wait. This actually makes sense. Only instead of coding perfectly legible code, legislators are the kind of coders that craft spaghetti code which has tons of bugs, unforeseen glitches, hidden functions to give their friends back doors through the system, and which can't be read by another human being without them going cross-eyed.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Or we could do both? Ban up-skirt photography (viewing panty or panty-less) and ban going panty-less. That way we stop all the pervs. Because everything about your post rings with the idea that you're wanting your girl to flash or near flash other people. That offends the uptight people, only further goads and entices the up-skirt pervs, and leaves the small minority confused and possibly angry that you might be flashing their small children (viewing angle considered and all).
But, yea, whatever, it's all the up-skirt photographer's fault because how were you to expect that an intentional act to entice views up your girl's skirt might result in views up your girl's skirt. I mean, honestly, if you at least argued your girl *always* wore panties it'd be clear the onus was on the up-skirt photographers.
Who mentioned violence? You seem to be hashing out a personal issue here.
+1 Upsightful
The second amendment looks as if it suggests that the National Guard can own an ICBM. However people like to pretend it gives them the right to military weapons without the responsibility of serving in the military. They may be right, but even if they are they are IMHO whining pussies twisting the law to avoid doing their duty.
So think of that the next time you see those cowards leading the NRA who are pretending to be big tough men wrapped in a flag.
That's an opinion. You can't really find a fact in interpretation of such a thing - just interpretations and rulings. Feel free to ignore my opinion or get angry if you think I'm calling you a coward weaseling out of the responsibility that is supposed to come with the priviledge.
"Short" has nothing to do with it. What the Judge thinks of the practice has nothing to do with it. The perving laws deal with peeping in windows or dressing rooms, not going for unexpected angles to catch people unaware. The law was too explicitly crafted, so missed a "new" attack on women's genitles.
Learn to love Alaska
This decision makes a kind of sense to me, and it's not difficult to understand. A woman in a dress or skirt wears that clothing with the knowledge that a breeze, for example, could come along and remove whatever modesty might exist. The classic Marilyn Monroe/Subway vent thing.
Therefore, there could not be an expectation of privacy when that type of clothing is worn. Because exposure can be an issue and a risk that is just accepted, or else they'd wear something else.
As a guy, I don't understand a lot of why women do what they do, such as carrying handbags and wearing clothes with no bottom like a dress or skirt, and how this manages to happen across culture or continents that have nothing obvious to do with each other. But it seems to me having the wind potentially expose your privates -and with the risk that is for women, is kind of a drawback, along with the lack of protection to the legs.
FWIW I may be a neanderthal for wondering such things but I still think upskirting is horrible and not how people should behave in this society. It should be a crime because it serves no purpose except to exploit the victim or target.
Sig for hire.
Actually, it does. The restriction on shouting fire in a theater comes from legislation -- constitutionally forbidden legislation, for that matter.
You can shout fire in a school -- it's called a "fire drill" (or a fire.) Shouting fire in a theater... same thing. Except there are more adults. Act as if there was an actual event, or deal with actual event. Saying you can't do it is ridiculous. Especially in light of the fact that reasonable law would penalize trampling others, etc... the very things that this idea is supposed to address. From the theater owner's perspective, they can always refuse service to someone who does such a thing in a manner that affects the business.
But there is no speech that can be deemed legitimately illegal, until or unless the constitution is amended. That's not to say that the law won't attack you for it -- we've already established that the law is far out of hand. Here's the relevant portion of the first:
If that's not clear to you, I can't imagine why, other than a desire to treat the constitution as of no consequence. Again: no law. How much bloody clearer could it be?
The consequence of ignoring what the constitution says leads to *everything* it says becoming irrelevant, and then what do we have? Arbitrary law, that's what. Might as well be any third world country at that point. Maybe enjoy a Supreme Dictator who buys their way in to Rule The Homeland. After all, if the constitution doesn't count... anything goes that our bought-and-paid for legislature says can go.
You could have consequences like corporations being treated as if they were people, land being taken from owners in order to build commercial enterprises, money confiscated without a warrant, widespread surveillance, your retirement account ID used to track you, laws that retroactively increase punishment for crimes after sentencing, warrants issued without probable cause, torture, isolation from representation, you could actually be told what you can eat and what you can't... I know it sounds crazy, but this stuff could actually happen!
People who think the constitution was only intended to be advisory, or that it isn't flexible enough to change as we need it to, simply don't understand the constitution, or what a constitutional republic is supposed to be.
Sentences are decided by judges. The statute just gives a limit.
A judge's job is to interpret the existing law, not make stuff up to conform to what the law should be....
I agree with that.
So judges are effectively a CPU, simply executing what's written. (GOTO but not DWIW.)
But then ... that makes the legislature which write the laws .... OMG, PROGRAMERS! They're one of us!!
Law is the source code for society. The problem is, we vote in marketers to craft it rather than engineers.
Wrong, The United States of America _is_ a country. "The United States of America" is the proper name for the singular nation comprised of multiple states. It is not a single name for a disparate collection of individuals, as would be the case with the name of a corporation, team, etc.
I appreciate your attempt, however feeble, to properly apply plural verbs to plural subjects, but you've missed the mark on this one by a large margin.
A woman wearing a skirt is not an invitation to take a photo up the skirt any more than a man wearing shorts is an invitation to take a photo up the shorts leg.
There is never an invitation, and if you were photographing women's legs there would still be an effort to bring trumped up charges. Especially if the recordings were secret...maybe even made with Google Glass! Female sexual hysteria overrides everything, and indeed no one questions taking pictures up men's shorts (granted, in the seated position) to use as evidence for their arrest on exposure charges or for vigilante internet campaigns.
This guy doesn't seem to get the nuanced difference between wearing a skirt to walk down the street or sit in a restaurant as opposed to wearing one while, say, doing gymnastics. The difference in how much it conceals is drastically different. Likewise, I'd venture to guess that most women probably wouldn't walk on a glass walkway with others walking beneath it while wearing a skirt/dress.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
You'll note the second amendment says "Congress shall not", it says what Congrss may not do. It does not claim to give citizens any right at all. Instead, it says Congress may not abridge THE right. Not that they must give you some new right, but that they must not violate THE right, the right you already have, by virtue of being human.
The plain wording of the Constitution simply recognizes that you have these rights and the government shouldn't violate them. Nowhere dies it define what exactly "the freedom of speech" is. Perhaps the reason the founders didn't feel the need to define these rights is because they were already defined in the existing law, English common law. I think you'll find that at the time they wrote "THE freedom of speech", they understood that freedom to include unpopular speech, but not shouting fire in a crowded theatre, libel, and a few other things.
This fact, that the ConConstitution speaks of protecting pre-existing rights, is crucially important. If your rights were not pre-existing as part of bring human, they must have been given to you by government. What government can give, government can take away. The Constitution rejects that view. Because your rights are endowed by your creator, legal documents can neither remove the nor define them. The Constitution doesn't define the freedom of speech because it can't. If it could, it could define freedom of speech as freedom to say approved things. The definition is elsewhere, as it must be.
There were some glass stairs, and there were some creeps taking upskirt pictures of cosplayers. It was creeping people out. But before they had to go to the police, they tried a simpler solution: They asked Sailor Bubba if he'd be willing to walk up and down those stairs for a while.
Note: He does not wear underwear under his sailor suit.
The creeps left.
Sailor Bubba is a fairly cool guy.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
The people that wrote the Constituition wrote other papers describing and supporting the contents of that foundational document. Both sides choose to ignore that fact. But the Constitution comes with backup material and context.
(btw, you're version of the meaning isn't aligned with that supporting documentation)
When the constitution clearly states something, there is NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION, PERIOD.
So of course the judges committed acts of treason for trying to re-interpret them, as have most of the recent Presidents, Vice Presidents, joint chiefs of staff and the entire workforce for the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government alphabet soup organizations.
Having some judge declare it isn't so, doesn't make it not so. Especially when everyone else in the country knows it is so. So so so so... what was I saying?
Oh yeah, they have acted in a treasonous faction, they have committed acts of treason and since we are in a "state of war" footing with regards to many areas, the consequences for those acts of treason is 100% clear.
Arrest them all, convict them all (evidence is all around them), then line them up, hand em their cigarettes and blind-folds, and sit back and enjoy watching our military executioners do something right for once.
Nudity in public, that is?
Because it's convenient to allow creative interpretation instead of actually amending the Constitution, we've lost much of the point of it all!
Pssstt.. I've got a secret for you. The founding fathers didn't know how to interpret the damn thing either. They couldn't agree, so they just made the bill of rights rather vague and put in place the power of the courts to interpret the law. So "creative interpretting" as you put it was always the intent.
If your idea is to amend the constitution to be clear about everything, you're going to have to do a LOT of amending. How many Supreme court decisions are there every year? That's gives you a very small idea of the role of the supreme court. You really want to amend the constitution that much? Think it's hard to interpret now.. think about if we amended it ever month.
Remeber, the constitution was intentionally made to be rather difficult to amend. I sure as hell don't want to make it easier.
AccountKiller
That's utterly different from selective enforcement.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It might be difficult to show damages. With a dead body, the damages are a bit more clear.
Didn't Versace come out recently with a tall belt that could be worn with or without anything else below the waist?
I agree with your points, but partial nudity by itself is perfectly ambiguous. The error is still with the judges who used this definition to claim it did not count as nudity.
So in case the woman whose upskirt is taken is wearing pantihose, there is no issue as there is no nudity under that skirt: everything is covered up.
Really? Please explain.
The laws governing secret photographing. The court found that they do not forbid upskirt photos. And the blame for that should fall on whoever wrote the laws and any latter politicians in power that did not change them to include upskirt photos.
This is what autism looks like.
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," wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.
The previous law was written to stop people taking surreptitious photos of nude or partially nude people in settings where they reasonably expect privacy. It was never written to prevent someone shoving a camera up or down their clothing to take pictures. The state attorney's office is currently drafting new laws to make that action illegal, but currently it is not because nobody thought a specific law against it was needed. Obviously, now there is.
~~
Meh. It devolves to be the same thing once there are so many laws that everyone is a criminal.
Have you ever looked at the label on a container of bleach? Do you see the warning on the label that it is a violation of federal law to use the bleach in a manner inconsistent with its labeling? Have you ever used the bleach for some application that wasn't on the label? Ever heard of someone who has been prosecuted for misusing bleach? No?
Neither have I, but I have also willfully, with full knowledge of the law and without remorse, used bleach to disinfect water while camping. I am a criminal, and the penalties for intentional, knowing violation make it a felony.
So, here's how it works in practice:
"well, you didn't technically do X, but we don't like you anyway so it's off to jail for this other crime everyone commits but we rarely enforce"
In my jurisdiction (non-US) there's stuff like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Not sure whether there are such laws in Massachusetts..
Don't quote me on this.
Want to make it clear: (Not saying women should do this, or break any law just that it would be cool.) But what do you think of making it legal for a woman to do that? Sort of a sexual stand your ground law?
Next time you see some one doing an up-skirt don't look away, look right at the person and make it clear you see him (or her) and do not approve.
I have a friend who used to do shit like that. Not like super duper creepy, but opportunistically.
We were all out at a bar one time and he's walking back to the table, sees this girl in a short skirt facing away from with at a "good" angle.
He starts lining up the shot and his girlfriend goes up to the girl and says, "Excuse me, there's some pervert over there trying to take a picture of your underwear".
The girl looks around sees him calls him a pervert and we all bust out laughing.
Don't fuck with Lisa. They've been married a long time now ;-)
The pipe thing is your business, I'd suggest you try it and see what happens although it's probably best to check all applicable laws in your duristiction first - you could potentially be in trouble in the UK.
2 year olds do not take photos up peoples skirts, no do they seek out skirts to look up for their own gratification. There's also a big difference between seeing up someones skirt because the wind blew or because the fell over and deliberately looking up their skirt.
The original can-can was danced without underwear that was the attraction.
e.g. The Federalist Papers? - http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/docu...
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Who mentioned violence? You seem to be hashing out a personal issue here.
Violence is the issue. Framing it as something about "making a smart choice" is missing the issue.
In states with "stand your ground" laws, I assume the women could kill them and say they feared for their lives. Other than that, the courts are worthless when it comes to protecting women from sexual mistreatment.
Yep. Clear enough to get it to stop! And in "stand your ground" states, the woman could always say she thought the phone/camera was a weapon.:)
You're clearly new to the internet, it must be nice to be so naive ;)
The world isn't going to end if there's a law passed that makes it a minor offence to try and use covert recording to look inside someone's clothes without them knowing. It's not going to lead to hundreds of innocent people being brought up on dodgy charges and it isn't the thin end of some terrible wedge that's going to ruin society. People want to be able to leave the house without worrying that people are going to go to absurd lengths to invade what is a distinctly reasonable expectation of privacy.
Myth.
Unfortunately true, but it doesn't undermine the point. I don't think society would be better if an unelected body gets to decide what is, or isn't legal.
As to the supreme court, one does indeed wonder exactly how we've ended up with some of the decisions they've come to. If it could be proved that they were acting politically then I'd be all in favour of trying them for treason (though obviously I don't think we can).
Have you considered the following possibility: that the law (in general, as in the body rules) was badly upheld in this case?
Firstly the ruling said that someone wearing a skirt is not partially nude even when she does not have underwear on and what is under her skirt is exposed. That seems like a very confusing ruling to say the least.
Secondly the fact that her privacy and dignity has been completely violated seems to be completely ignored by this ruling.
Thirdly: the police seemed very convinced that it WAS illegal because they set a special trap to catch this guy. It must be very frustrating to go to all this effort to catch a guy red handed and then have a high court shrug it off like: "I don't see anything wrong here".
If that court would have made the same reasoning as the lower court (after all what if the girl had no underwear on? Then suddenly his photo becomes illegal! What if she wore no bra and a part of her breasts comes into view? Then he is punishable?) things would not have come to this.
So being tagged as a sex offender isn't bad enough, men need to be executed for offending your moral outrage sensibilities. Fuck assholes like you. I wish we had execution for moral crusaders.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
And, legislators quickly ammended the law to close the loophole and is on the governor's desk awaiting signature. Unfortunately, the guy will get off (more was than one). Next guy won't be so lucky.
Someone who has more time then me should do a matchup between those sicko's who think a fully clothed woman has no expectation of privacy in public with those who think a security camera is 1984 and see whether there are matches.
For me I learned today that Slashdot has a lot of creeps.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I think most programmers should be familiar with this concept.
Yes, programming is just the same as law and they should both follow the same principles </sarcasm>
I don't give a whit about intention - I care about what's actually written.
Well, that's not how the law works. The law can't work that way. There's no such thing as a rock-solid piece of prose. English is not C++ and you can't prove anything correct. All laws as written are a priori imprecise, and the judges make them more precise via case law, which is a series of case-by-case decisions based on what the law seems intended to prevent, when the exact desired outcome isn't clear from the wording of the law. (This isn't my controversial opinion, these are basic facts about how the judicial system works.)
What's more, laws are in practice written to a greater or lesser precision up-front in order to deliberately allow judges to exercise discretion. (Case in point is the divorce law in the UK which is deliberately vague so that case-by-case decisions have to be made.) It's not like programming where the computer is an idiot and you have to spell everything out precisely. The entire point of the judiciary is that the judge is not an idiot, he is a specific thinking component in the system, and the system is designed to use that component to make decisions which are undecidable at a higher legislative level that has a specific policy intent but that's removed from specific circumstances. And yes, I know that paragraph contains excessive italics but this stuff is important - it's the bedrock of our entire society. You can model it with math, as I'm sort of doing here, but you can't use a model that makes the judge merely a dumb CPU that's running the "perfect code" of the legislature, because that model (a) doesn't reflect reality and (b) can't ever be made to work.
I can't imagine living in a society that ...
You already live in that society, to an extent. But being a programmer you're suffering from binary thinking. If it's that society to an extent it must follow that "well, you didn't technically do X, but we don't like you anyway so it's off to jail" can happen. No, it doesn't work that way either. *sigh* And this is why programmers never make it into the legislature ...
Disturbing the peace is a crime in Massachusetts, but it's a misdemeanor: the punishment is a small fine.
If your mother were raped, would that deserve a comic sketch?
The problem with the notion that you should follow the spirit of the law, and not just the letter, means that you now have two very different sets of rules to follow - one which is laid out word for word and any ambiguity can be argued objectively according to that wording, and the other which is entirely fuzzy and subject to change on a whim depending on who it is that is being held to it.
Stupid, it's not about being comfortable, it's about men violating women's privacy to get their jollies. It's about men sticking a camera up a woman's skirt to take pictures. That's not the woman's fault, that's the man's fault, no matter how short the woman's skirt is.
Please explain typically means to give justification for a single statement instead of just linking to an entire fucking library for people to sift through for weeks themselves - however at least you've made far more effort than the AC.
Besides - the militia bit looks pretty obvious. It would be hard to weasel past that, although the civilians that try hard to look like military running the NRA have spent a lot on PR trying.
The problem is that if you go down that road, your laws would have to be written down so precisely that it would actually be impossible to write them down. For example, how would you define "a person"? This suddenly becomes non-trivial. Better to let a judge interpret the law by common sense.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I know women who are very tightly buttened up & show nothing more than face, neck & hands. I also know women who are comfortable on nude beaches. I respect all of these women & all those between thes two extremes who dress according to what they are comfortable with.
Those I have little respect for are the hypocritical people who dress so that people will look at them then complain that they are looked at.
Oh but it's special because they're girls? That's sexist bullshit.
Now crawl back into your hole coward.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I'm appalled at the number of "if you don't want it seen, don't flaunt it" posts in response to this article. What happened to a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the person wearing the skirt wanted their underwear (or lack thereof) seen, do you not think they'd remove the skirt themselves? Sure, it's not "illegal", but is it seriously that hard to respect the boundaries of another human being?
No. I respect those who dress according to their beliefs (through religion, morality, whatever). If you're not comfortable with showing it, whether it's accidentally or on purpose, then don't. Full stop.
I don't care whether it's wearing a skirt & no panties or not wearing a headscarf, stop complaining when people look at what you reveal, thats just being hypocrical. Assume yourself.
On the other end of the spectrum I also uphold the rights of those who want to dress differently -- not being forced to wear a burqua or headscarf or pants or long skirts or whatever.
It seems to me that you want to force your dress codes on everyone else through some sens of "this is right", because somone other than the wearer doesn't like it. When you get down to it, you use the same reasonning as the mullahs.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
"Agreed. A judge isn't supposed to decide what's right or wrong, but rather what's legal or illegal. Judges are just supposed to interpret the laws as written. If there's no law against something, then a judge has no recourse but to deem that thing legal. Even if any rational person would find it in poor taste."
Hopefully Slashdot doesn't miss this point again the next time there is a Snowden article.
So what about if she's wearing pants and you capture her crotch?
Is that a private place? What if she's wearing pants, bends down and you capture the top of her panties?
What if she's wearing a long skirt and a gust of wind comes up and you capture her knee?
I don't actually want answers to any of those questions. I'm just pointing out that by your standard, the definition of "private place" is very subjective and therefore open to abuse. Since US law is in some ways determined by precedent, you'd essentially lower the bar down to the most conservative judge in the land.
The second amendment only says that you have the right to bear arms.
Not which ones you are allowed to bear. There is no enshrined constitutional right for you to own to own a gun or a missile.
Under the constitution the government is within their rights to limit you to owning a sword and prohibiting your ownership of other weapons.
You consider having exact laws a bad thing? I'd rather have the laws I have to live under as exact as possible, with no wiggle room in which a corrupt police officer or judge (not the entire law enforcement or judiciary, talking about smaller levels of corruption here) has room to manoeuvre to get you no matter what.
>"There is a law that says you can't photograph somebody inside a house (e.g., through a window) or in a similar place which is considered private property." //
Could you quote the USC on that?
The problem is that an "upskirt" shot could be someone sitting on some steps in public wearing a short skirt - now you could capture that image accidentally or on purpose.
There are laws in the UK, where I am, that cover the sort of intrusion where you photograph covertly but there will always be edge cases like above where there is no physical evidence of the mens rea.
Your obtuse interpretation would mean that sex in public is allowed if one party is wearing a skirt as then they're in a private place.
This is a little old, actually. It did not take long for the legislature to react: http://www.wmtw.com/national/Mass-Legislature-passes-upskirting-ban/24846962?absolute=true (Thu 3/6 in the evening is the byline on my article.)
I don't know what kind of a rock I've been living under, but I've never seen anyone attempting to take an upshot. I think a good retaliation would be to take a portrait of the dude and instagram him or whatever, calling him out as a pervert.
The first amendment says you may speak freely. It does NOT say you can start a panic at will. Inciting a panic would potentially deprive those so panicked of life, liberty or property.
The second amendment does not define "arms" so you could own an ICBM if you wanted. Who wouldn't? But the same thing applies. You may not use said arms to deprive someone of life liberty or property.
Constitutionality in a vast majority of cases is self-evident.
if my girl decides to stop occasionally going panty-less (exciting to both of us) because of a few pervs, then this idiotic up-skirt photography behavior should be stopped.
What exactly about doing this makes it exciting if not for the real risk of someone noticing? If that risk didn't exist, it would be no different than going commando with jeans.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
no matter how short the woman's skirt is
This is no simple issue precisely because of this. At some point, a skirt is so short, that you just do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy period. Intent here is everything, and not only on the part of the photographer.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
You can sexualize anything. Should taking pictures of shoes be a sex crime too?
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
He was charged with MGL Chp 272 Sec 104 (photographing unsuspecting nude person), the elements of this charge were not proved by the prosecution, hence the SJC making their ruling.
Proper charges should have been MGL Chp 272 Sec 53D (accosting/annoying a person of the oppsosite sex) and MGL Chp 272-Sec53G of F (disturbing the peace, and disorderly conduct). Elements of these crimes were met.
The DAs office once again went for the sexy charge, and lost.
Mod parent up.
The constitution was made to be amended, not interpreted.
It's written in English, and I'm literate. No interpreter needed.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Yes, so i'll get a 6" round pipe, 1 foot long...
Mandingo, is that you?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Just wondering, are you the shit dick guy?
Or the man could just say he thought he saw a weapon up her skirt and was standing his ground. Im sure after he killed her there would be lots of bystanders who would now also get a nice look up her skirt as she lays there on the ground. She wouldnt even be offended anymore so it's really win win.
Following the law literally and blindly is the only fair way to have laws. If laws were followed in a fuzzy and highly interpretive manner, would you not have even more examples of sports jock heroes getting away with rape, even more black people being found guilty disproportionately, creepy guys on a sex registry getting convicted while a pretty white girl with a tough luck story gets a jury's sympathy, even more police abusing and twisting laws to pick and choose who goes down, etc. It's just as bad as laws that everyone breaks routinely, so stop being thoroughly enforced. It just opens up an avenue to selectively charge people with something when you don't like them. In a biased world filled with people with their own ideas of justice, morality and carrying their own prejudices. The law is the framework we have to achieve fairness and consistency.
Still not as fun as upskirts though...
So much victim-blaming language going around here. "Hey, nobody would take pictures of her if she'd just stop wearing skirts!" Gee, maybe it's the douchebag taking the pictures that's the problem, huh?
Upskirt photos don't just "happen," they're taken intentionally by people who are willfully invading the personal space of another. There are numerous contexts in which one has an expectation of privacy. What is beneath one's skirt is one such context.
I suppose if someone uses a public bathroom and someone takes photos/videos of them from the adjacent stall, that'd be fine, too? After all, if you didn't want to be photographed, you wouldn't use a public restroom where there are gaps between the stall walls and the floor/ceiling.
People who are doing nothing wrong shouldn't have to adjust their behavior in order to thwart miscreants. The law should side against the miscreants.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
The judges simple pointed out that under current law taking these pictures is legal.
No, the judge pointed out that the law the guy was charged with did not apply in this case. Big difference. There may be one or more laws that he broke, but the one he was actually charged with was wrong.
If it's just hanging out there in the open is it really private, isn't the woman just begging for it in that case. I mean it would be impolite not to have a look as she clearly wants the attention.
wait did the guy beat the woman and then take a picture of er panties after she had hit the ground? I am confused.
Please, please, please find help soon.
[citation needed]
or submit it to the Myth Busters to debunk.
Midgets and Oompahloompahs report and elevators smell differently to them than other people.
I'm not sure I agree with that primarily because in order to get such a picture, the person taking it must invade someone's privacy.
A judge's job is supposed to prosecute people for wrong doing and of course release innocent people based on the law. This case is absolutely wrong doing, and I have not seen anyone defending the guy's actions or claiming he was not criminal. The judges job is not to twist the intention of the law to let people off on technicalities. Remember this is not something lacking because of technological advance, it was a technicality based on the way the judges decided to interpret wording. And fine, if they can't use a law regarding lewd photography charge, why not a peeping tom law? A judge can direct prosecution in this way which would have still resulted in penalty, but obviously different punishment.
In this case, the judges did not perform their primary role of interpreting the law based on the intent of the law. Prosecutors in TFA agree with that assessment.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No idea. I'm speaking to the fat girls in super short skirts thing. I've seen some twice as wide as they were tall. And they thought they looked good.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
if you have enough money to own an ICBM, you probably don't have to worry about laws for us regular folks.
That's right and if you forget to lock the doors on your car when I rob it, it shouldn't be up to society to have to arrest me and charge me with a crime. You left your doors unlocked, next time try and not be so stupid -- right?
I'm not sure I agree with that primarily because in order to get such a picture, the person taking it must invade someone's privacy.
Of course.
The problem lies in your comment on judges thinking it's OK as it's not nudity. It seems that you argue that (partial) nudity should be part of the equation - which if so, would make an upskirt totally legal if the victim would wear pantihose, in which case it's easy to argue there is no nudity at all.
I've always thought that judges have to implement the law as it's written. They're not supposed to interpret the law, other than maybe at points where the law is unclear, in which case judges may reserve judgement on that exact ground, and ask the politicians to write the law properly.
And in the end this is what happened here, as within hours a new law was written. Now the speed at which that happened is worrisome to me, as it means there has not been proper discussion on the actual content of the law. It may have many unintended consequences, that are a result of not thinking it through properly, or it may have been used by some radical politician to advance his/her agenda.
> Please explain typically means to give justification for a single statement
e.g. means "for example" (as opposed to i.e. "in other words")
When you said "please explain" it was not clear if you were not aware of the existing supporting documents and/or you wanted an explanation about how opinion pieces from that time "support" his argument. I gave a purely informative link because I certainly don't know what AC is thinking. I was just moderating and happened to see your post through +1 friend filter.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
What? You have that so completely backwards, I'm forced to assume you're trolling.
I have yet to see any portion of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Amendments that states "No up Skirt Photos". What Federal Law are you talking about?
1) My guess is that declaring the woman partially nude in that case would cause her a lot of problems with other laws. Would it even be legal for her to be partially nude in public?
2) Her privacy and dignity are not important in this case unless there are laws that protect them. And there don't seem to be any in this case.
3) The police don't have the best record of knowing what the law is. Most cops are not lawyers and even those that are don't have the right to decide what the laws mean.
Why blame the court and not those that wrote ambiguous laws? Would you like it if the court decided that yes, she was partial nude so the photographer was sent to jail, if they at the same time convicted her for indecent exposure?
Interesting thought. I was under the impression that the point of contention with Snowden's actions was conflicting rules at various levels.
Sure, he's guilty of breaking the rules set forth by his company, but that's not necessarily against the law. And even if it were, his actions upheld the 4th amendment, which supersedes any local laws, and absolutely supersedes any company regulations.
This signature is false.
I've always thought that judges have to implement the law as it's written.
I believe this is where we disagree, as mentioned earlier and by the prosecutors in TFA the "intent" of the law is critical to a judges ruling.
Sure, we would most likely agree that murder laws can not be used to charge bribery unless both occurred (I surely agree). Obviously a judge can't take an arbitrary law to prosecute someone.
That said, no wording or law can be written without some ambiguity. That's not a limitation of "Law" but a limitation of language. It should not be a lawmakers job to write specific laws for very specific detailed things either. This line of thinking has gotten us to the point we are at today with law, and the system has become a mess which is impossible to manage and openly corrupt.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes, obviously. You can shout fire, that is not illegal. Saying it with the intent to cause chaos, mayhem, harm, is what is illegal, not the utterance of the words themselves.
With ICBM's and Nuclear arms, yes, strictly constitutionally speaking, those are legal to own and carry. Now that those weapons exist, it was up to us to amend the constitution to not include them specifically. Passing regular laws that do the same, is itself, unconstitutional. Unfortunately, a lot of judges don't have the ethical fortitude to do what is right (adhere to the constitution) when it conflicts with what feels right (people shouldn't have nukes) and force the legislature to do their job and fix the law or the constitution. However, this would require a REAL majority to believe the constitution needs changing to keep up with times which is where things fall down because the majority of the people, apparently, are not of that opinion.
Except that it allows everyone to know, ahead of time, what the law says and means. Requiring multiple levels of rationalization and logical leaps to understand what the law is does not a free or fair society make.
Go ahead and try that, good luck with your second degree murder trial.
That's not how "stand your ground" works and you should know better. You can't just shoot someone and then claim after the fact "I thought he had a gun" and expect to get away with murder.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I believe the judge ruled correctly. The law stated a condition of "undress or partial undress" or words that are similar. If the judge ruled that the act was illegal then he'd be ruling that all women in skirts are partially undressed. That would make for an interesting precedent for other court cases to follow.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I'm glad that one person here gets it.
The second amendment is a complete mess. It contains two contradictory statements separated by a comma.
>Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech
The parent post argued that the constitution is self-evident and needs to interpretation from anyone. I rebutted that by citing the actual text of two amendment.
The first amendment, read literally, allows anyone to say any thing at any time.
The Constitution controls what the Government may or may not do, that is why I said law.
``(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private
area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under
circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of
privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both.
``(b) In this section--
``(1) the term `capture', with respect to an image, means to
videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
``(2) the term `broadcast' means to electronically transmit
a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or
persons;
``(3) the term `a private area of the individual' means the
naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or
female breast of that individual;
``(4) the term `female breast' means any portion of the
female breast below the top of the areola; and
``(5) the term `under circumstances in which that individual
has a reasonable expectation of privacy' means--
``(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person
would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy,
without being concerned that an image of a private area
of the individual was being captured; or
``(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person
would believe that a private area of the individual
would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that
person is in a public or private place.
S. 1301 (108th): Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The 50 Unites States of America, are a country, what's so hard to understand?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I thought it would be very clear that is what I was after, especially since it followed on from the ACs "btw, you're version of the meaning isn't aligned with that supporting documentation". It looks like I was too brief so it was not clear.
Thanks for the link BTW.
The constitution doesn't speak though. Someone, somewhere, has to interpret it. Especially when it is applied to something new.
When the constitution was written, Arms, in other words armament which means "military weapons and equipment" amounted to cannons and rifles.
Is your suggestion that every time a new type of armament was invented (tanks, nukes, etc..), we would need to amend the constitution to specifically disallow it? Or were you thinking of some more creative amendment like, "a person can only own armament that generate X amount of destructive force per second". We seem to do that with law right now. Limit clips, disallow rocket launchers being sold to unlicensed folks, etc..
pEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SOLVE THEIR DISPUTES WITHOUT RUNNING TO BIG DADDY LAW. tHE LAW HAS NO RIGHT TO CURTAIL MY RIGHT TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS. oN THE OTHER HAND IT HAS NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH THE VIOLENT ACTIONS TAKEN ON THE PART OF THE SUBJECT OF MY ARTISTIC EYE, HER BOYFRIEND OR ANY OF A COUNTLESS NUMBER OF BYSTANDERS AGAINST MYSELF FOR BEING A CREEP.
tHIS POST IS CAPITALIZED BECAUSE MY CAPSLOCK KEY FELL OFF MY KEYBOARD. tHINK DIFFERENT, DON'T BE A SLAVE TO STANDARD CAPTIALIZATION AND SPELLIN. iF I MUST ACCECPT HOMOSEXUALS, BY GUM IT, THEN U MUST ACCEPT MY CAPITALIZATION. JUDGE ME NOT BY MY KEYBOARD, JUDGE ME BY THE QUALITY OF MY POST.
Sorry but if you're the highest law in the land and you say things (or uphold jurisprudence saying things) like 'Why yes, the Commerce Clause does mean that if you sit alone on your own land and grow something you use only yourself, the federal government can regulate it if you might have otherwise bought it from a source that might have crossed state lines', among their other gems, you absolutely should be tried for treason since there's no possible way you can argue you're not betraying this country.
Listen you brainless prejudiced twit, your not being comfortable with how much skin you show in public is your problem. As I have said elsewhere in this thread I respect all women who dress how they are comfortable with in public.
You see those grates in the sidewalk? I have worked below some of them. To the women who walked above me and realized that they had shown more than they thought:
- and laughed: my thanks and respect
- and scurried off: sorry, wear something you're more comfortable with so you don't embarrass yourself next time
- and yelled at us because in their opinion (like yours) we were somehow villainous for appreciating the occasional glances: go home woman & put on some pants. I'm not the problem, you are.
- and came back, this time without panties: uh thanks, but we're trying to work down here.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
See my comment to the same prejudiced twit: sometimes it isn't even with the length of the skirt but just conditions.
Where I live, many young tourists like to sit on the steps of the monuments. Guess what is in plain sight to anyone in front and below them? Are we all criminals because they were too thoughtless to consider the consequences and so prudish as to consider it a crime? No.
Are all the men and women who work below the grates in sidewalks criminals? Again, no.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
You're right, 6' tall is a bit taller than median, but well within the fat part of the bell curve. I am somewhat tall, but not particularly.
If you don't believe that your son has ever unintentionally seen down a woman's shirt, you are simply incorrect. Either that or he has never spoken to a woman shorter than about 5'6" wearing a low(ish) cut shirt. It just happens.
As to my being a pervert who can't get dates... I don't have that particular problem, and while many members of society dislike me for a variety of reasons, I have no evidence to suggest that undesired ogling is one of them.
Good luck with the bizarre moralism you've cultivated, I hope it serves you well.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
If you are looking down people's shirts while talking to them then you are doing it wrong. Stop sneaking up behind people and peeking to talk to them.
My son keeps a respectable pace when speaking to someone, and generally talks to them to their face so no he does not look down women's shirts to talk to them. Eye contact is critical for normal conversation.
I believe you may think cleavage is boobs though, so are confused on more than just keeping a respectable distance or where to put your eyes when talking. Perhaps you are visiting a strip club daily, work at a brothel, or some such.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Oh, and I'm not much shorter than my 6'3" son. I used him as an example since he's taller and has no problems like you claim to have. I have friends ranging from 5' even to 6'7" and nobody I know has that issue because of their height.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Peeping tom: requires that the victim be partly undressed.
Hm. Isn't the effect of purposefully looking from that point of view effectively looking at the person in a partially undressed manner? It effectively "removes" the skirt.
As a female wearing a skirt, I would feel violated. As a male wearing a kilt, I would feel disturbed. If my skirt or kilt flapped up (due to wind or such), I would feel exposed.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
No, the fact she is wearing a skirt means she not nude or partially nude. The fact she might or might not be wearing panties is not relevant.
She is expecting privacy - or she wouldn't be wearing a skirt.
I think the difference is in how many people see. If the people in the immediate vicinity see your cooch when the wind catches your skirt just right then that's kinda fun, but if your picture ends up on the internet to be seen by thousands then it's not so cool any more.
Is 1563649 a prime number?