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."

5 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A new law in not what is needed by Myu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 map's upside down...
  2. Re:A new law in not what is needed by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:A new law in not what is needed by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There is no middle ground:

    ....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
  4. Re:Wait, what is this? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:A new law in not what is needed by jxander · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.