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."
It's time to remove these judges.
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 Massachusetts court applying laws as written, rather than making up some bogus progressive interpretation to satisfy their liberal bias? That IS news!
"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.
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.
Wow, this is thoroughly disgusting. How much 'evidence' did the judge review before deciding that he, personally, actually liked upskirt photos. With this ruling the judge has actually implied that a woman in a skirt automatically 'consents' to invasive creeping. That's the equivalent of claiming a rape victim 'asked for it' by wearing a short skirt. What a filthy lowlife scumbag!
Next on the docket: hidden cameras in public restrooms - it's a public space, so expect to be photographed & filmed! Slippery slope, your (dis)honor.
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
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 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.
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).
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".
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.
Who says that government is inefficient?
Why is Snark Required?
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!
Seriously, is this nerdy news worthy???
Photographing things publicly visible is fine, but what is inside of a dress is not publicly visible.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
You stay classy, Massachusetts.
Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...going commando in a skirt is now indecent exposure?
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
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
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
and go long panties in the market!
This judgement should boost the economy by generating more womens' underwear sales.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Fucking A!
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.
Sentences are decided by judges. The statute just gives a limit.
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/
Nudity in public, that is?
It might be difficult to show damages. With a dead body, the damages are a bit more clear.
This is what autism looks like.
Hole in the law? It would be great if the women would put a hole or two in the guy's chests with bullets, the put videos of the guys moaning in pain and dying as the women laugh and kick him. That would end "upskirting" really quickly.
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.
their deaths, and post them online. Hearing the woman yell at the pervert, pull out a gun, and as the guy begs for his life, shoot him. He starts to spew blood from both the entry and exist wounds as he coughs up blood. Another bullet smashes into him, and he can no longer stand. We she his head twitching on the ground, he is hardly aware anymore, then we see her foot enter the scene as she kicks his head and it snaps back. Then she laughs as he twitches, bleeds out and dies. How many such videos do you think it would take to end the "upskirting" problem? (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?
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.:)
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.
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?
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?
>"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.)
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.
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.
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.
Midgets and Oompahloompahs report and elevators smell differently to them than other people.
if you have enough money to own an ICBM, you probably don't have to worry about laws for us regular folks.
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.
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.
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