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~
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.
Remember, if you are out in public you have no expectation of privacy, and therefore can be photographed -- at any angle.
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
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.
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.
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.
The solution is to bring the relevant laws into the 21st century, then judges will have the tools that they need to deal with people who do this sort of thing. Given the attention that this case is getting I suspect that the laws will be modernized very soon.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
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
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.
Legally, photographing a woman in a state of partial or complete undress is explicitly illegal. Photographing a fully clothed woman from an angle that exposes her undergarments (or lack there of) is not.
Expect to see this law amended very shortly, as most residents that state probably already thought upskirtting was illegal.
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
Now, to get this court ruling pass in Japan....
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
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.
Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. He wrote the rules, not me.
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.
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 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
they used the wrong law to attempt to prosecute, the mistake was to try to use peeping tom law. If you walk up to woman and put your head or camera down low to view under her skirt you can be prosecuted for several things: it is sexual harassment, lewd conduct, disorderly conduct and many other things that are already illegal.
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!”
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
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
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
Addressing upskirt photography, It would probably make more sense to make it illegal to photograph anyone in such a way that reveals any more of their body than what they have chosen to reveal to those around them, unless the person being photographed has given informed consent to do so. The intent behind what you suggest is good, but has logistics problems with anyone taking photos in public places where there simply happen to be other people, even if they are not the intended subjects of the picture.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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?
Through her window she is in a private place. This is just taking a picture of what someone is wearing in public.
The ethical difference? The woman is choosing to wear the skirt knowing full well that people can see up them, not every moment but certainly many many times through the course of a day. So she's choosing to make what is under the skirt visible in public. Anything someone wears, displays, or does in public is fair game for photographing or making a video of under the law.
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.
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
"Addressing upskirt photography, It would probably make more sense to make it illegal to photograph anyone in such a way that reveals any more of their body than what they have chosen to reveal to those around them, unless the person being photographed has given informed consent to do so."
This is so vague as to be unworkable. What did the subject "choose" to do? ("Honest officer, she was flashing me on purpose!") What constitutes "permission"? Written permission? (There goes the evening news.) Police arresting somebody? (There goes protection against police brutality.) Etc. and so on, ad nauseum.
If you really want to pass a law, you have to draw a hard line somewhere. You can't leave it up to the whim of either the subject being photographed, or the photographer. Vagueness is societal poison when it comes to laws like this.
Currently, in most places, if it's in public it's photographable. It's really hard to make the law otherwise, and make it stick.
I remember in the late 60s, when the Berkely Barb put a picture of a woman in a miniskirt and no underwear on their front page. There was a lot of debate about it, as you can well imagine. The consensus was that while it showed bad taste on the part of the Barb, it was public so nobody had any genuine reason to complain.
Yes but what does common sense say?
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.
You determine what the person chose to reveal with regards to what is actually plainly visible to anyone who was *not* attempting to see beneath any layers of clothing without the person's informed consent. Such consent would require, at an absolute barest of minimums, at least explicit verbal permission.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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 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!
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.
it solves the upskirt issue, the paparazzi problem, and ends those annoying red light cameras.
It also solves the problem of security cameras if you're a burglar and prevents cops from being worried about recordings of police brutality. Neat!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
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 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 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.
+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.
Thanks. Now I can't take a photo of my kid in public (for example, playing in a neighborhood playground) because I might get someone else in the background and I don't have their consent. One photo with my cell camera to show my wife and I'll be a criminal. Forget it if I try sharing the photo on social media. I might as well just turn myself over to the local authorities right now and save time.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
"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.
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/
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.
Wow... where's thought crime coming from? As I said... you measure intent of the person being photographed by whether or not the person ever gave any informed consent to photograph anything that was being covered up by clothing, as I said. No informed consent means no intent....end of story. What constitutes informed consent would, at the barest of minimums, require explicit verbal permission, and from the photographer's point of view it would be safer to obtain written permission, if they feel the person being photographed may want to deny giving verbal permission later.
Of course, all of this is subject to other issues which can affect the legal validity of any so-called informed consent, such as whether or not the person was under any sort of duress when they made such consent.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
~~
This would be cool. A woman finds a man has done that too her, she gets off the bus, follows him, and videos him as she takes out a gun and lets him know she's going to kill him. As he begs for his life, she shoots him in the chest and laughs as he bleeds out and dies. Then she posts the video online.
Exact angle from horizontal/surface has to be specified.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
... oh... okay...
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In fairness, appearing to deliberately flash you, for example, may reasonably be inferred as giving informed consent. The argument that the target was deliberately flashing you, however, would require either an explicit statement after the fact that they admit to doing as much, or lacking any such statement because the subject is unknown, it would require that under the circumstances, it would have been expected and reasonable for the subject to have known about your presence and your intent to photograph them (ie, both yourself and your camera must have been plainly visible, and not concealed from their view in any way).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
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?
Try downtown Detroit, there doesn't appear to be anyone around most of the time.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
How is not letting you taking my picture a violation of your right to free expression? It's *my* expression you're capturing.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I'm pretty sure the cops usually smash your cameras when they are beating your head in. Sometimes they forget or miss one, but their intention is clear.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
As long as you don't actually capture someone else. you don't need to get into a tizzy over might-haves and could-haves.
I wasn't suggesting you get thrown into the gulag if you capture someone's photograph. But you probably should delete it if you don't have their permission. (I do this already, I feel that it is polite)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't purposefully take photos of other people, but if someone happens to be in the background of a shot I take of my children I'm not going to delete the photo. I also wouldn't expect someone else to delete a photo of their kid just because my kid happens to be in the background.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
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
"Wow... where's thought crime coming from?"
From this:
"You determine what the person chose to reveal..." [emphasis added]
This calls for determining what the person chose to do versus what they actually did.
It should be blatantly obvious that there is no way for a court to determine this. It's one person's word against another's. That's WHY the law doesn't already work that way.
What's under your skirt isn't "in public".
Sorry, but that's just false. In my lifetime I've been in LOTS of situations in which things under a dress were made public... intentionally or otherwise. But at least some of those times were definitely intentional.
The whole point here is that it's impossible for a court to determine whether it is intentional or not, so trying to base a law on that would lead to injustices.
The 50 Unites States of America, are a country, what's so hard to understand?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The argument that the target was deliberately flashing you, however, would require either an explicit statement after the fact that they admit to doing as much, or lacking any such statement because the subject is unknown, it would require that under the circumstances, it would have been expected and reasonable for the subject to have known about your presence and your intent to photograph them (ie, both yourself and your camera must have been plainly visible, and not concealed from their view in any way).
You are merely illustrating why the law cannot reasonably be written that way: people lie.
Women lie about consent for sex. Men lie about reasons for assault. People say they intended to do one thing when they actually did another. Then they change their minds and say they actually intended some 3rd thing.
There is VERY seldom any practical way to demonstrate in court what you INTENDED to do. Only what you did. So as an observer, if you do something, it is reasonable for me to think you intended to do it. Anything else requires me to read your mind, which is not a viable basis for court evidence.
"My word about this is better that yours" is also not a viable basis for law.
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.
And it should be blatantly obvious that intent, insomuch as the law concerns itself with it, is determined by objectively measurable criteria... and in this case, as I had repeatedly stated, that criteria would be giving informed consent.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Of course people lie... which is why any serious photographer who is wanting to take nude pictures would get consent for such in writing first, so it cannot later be controverted. A photographer can, however just as easily lie that he or she was allegedly given permission when they were not as a subject can later deny that they ever gave permission even after they did. Because the recommended policy I suggested of assuming that there is no consent to photograph what is underneath a person's clothes being the default condition in the first place, the photographer gains absolutely nothing by not explicitly gaining such consent in writing when he or she does not know the subject *EXTREMELY* well. Obviously, of course, written consent would technically only be required if either the subject is unavailable to ask verbally if they had ever given consent, or else if the subject should happen to later deny that they ever gave consent, and I can see no reason that the onus should reasonably be on the photographer to cover his or her own ass in this regard. If there's any doubt whatsoever, either don't do it in the first place, or get permission in writing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Of course people lie... which is why any serious photographer who is wanting to take nude pictures would get consent for such in writing first, so it cannot later be controverted. A photographer can, however just as easily lie that he or she was allegedly given permission when they were not as a subject can later deny that they ever gave permission even after they did."
You are again just reinforcing my point. Intent is generally hard to establish. Things in public are generally okay to photograph. The whole point here is where the line is to be drawn.
Because the recommended policy I suggested of assuming that there is no consent to photograph what is underneath a person's clothes being the default condition in the first place, the photographer gains absolutely nothing by not explicitly gaining such consent in writing when he or she does not know the subject *EXTREMELY* well.
I disagree. What about, for example, Picture #3 on this page? It would have been impossible.
If it's in public, I'm going to take a picture of it. If you don't like it, tough luck.
And it should be blatantly obvious that intent, insomuch as the law concerns itself with it, is determined by objectively measurable criteria... and in this case, as I had repeatedly stated, that criteria would be giving informed consent.
I know what you stated. But if the law were literally as you spelled out, public photography of just about anything would be taboo. Obviously that is not in the public interest.
As I just mentioned to someone else, if the law everywhere were as you say, pictures such as THESE would be impossible.
Nah. I'll just take a picture of it. If you don't like that, I suggest not doing whatever it is you object to having photographs of.
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..
I have zero childhood photos that include strangers in the shots. Maybe you should grow a pair. Or maybe I shouldn't hold you to the same standards.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Not impossible, just illegal. It would be up to a judge to determine if any particular photo did more public good than it harmed the people being photographed.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Most photography would not be affected by what I suggested, only photography that reveals parts of the subject's body which were actually covered by the subjects clothing, in which case informed consent would be required..
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Who said anything about changing the angle? The angle matters, not change in angle , nor any derivative of angle w.r.t. time.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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
"Not impossible, just illegal. It would be up to a judge to determine if any particular photo did more public good than it harmed the people being photographed."
Okay, technically not impossible. But unreasonably impractical to the point that people would simply stop taking public photography. If any public photograph could be taken to court on anybody's say-so, you have an impractical law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Laws are not intended to be so vague that anybody can take someone else to court whenever they disagree. In common-law countries like the U.S., laws are required to be reasonable.
"Most photography would not be affected by what I suggested, only photography that reveals parts of the subject's body which were actually covered by the subjects clothing, in which case informed consent would be required.."
You're making a distinction that isn't real. It is contradictory. If it's part of the body that's covered, then by definition there will be no picture of it. It if is in a picture, then by definition it was not covered.
And if you are saying a part of the body that is intended to be covered, then you are opening yourself up to gross abuse of the law, because anybody can lie about their intent, any time they want.
So why stop there? Why not just throw people in jail for any crime on somebody's say-so?
What's that you say? Because you should need actual evidence to convict someone of a crime?
Yep. There ya go. That's my point.
Something can be covered and there can still be a picture of it... either by utilizing specifically crafted shooting angles, which would be evidenced by looking at the photograph itself, or utilizing sophisticated surveillance systems which *can* image directly through clothing. Intent to not be seen naked, as I said, would be implied by virtue of wearing clothes in the first place, and any other alleged intent would require consent.
Choosing to focus on the wording I was using and suggesting that I was somehow suggesting that law enforcement needed to read minds to accomplish it in practice completely misses the point of what I was talking about.
As it sits, a law has already been passed now which pretty well sums up what I said in the first place, so arguing about what it should be now is pointless.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Again, this would only be applicable if the photograph revealed any parts of the body that a reasonable person would consider private. That would also mean that even somehow photographing a middle-eastern woman's face, when she ordinarily wears a sari, would be violation, unless the photographer has received explicit consent.
And for what it's worth, such a law has actually now been passed, so arguing that such a law is somehow going to be allegedly unenforceable is moot
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Nudists are not uncommon, for example. I even know a few.
"That would also mean that even somehow photographing a middle-eastern woman's face, when she ordinarily wears a sari, would be violation, unless the photographer has received explicit consent. "
Exactly. Which most people in the United States do not consider "reasonable". You're making my point for me.
You're trying to regulate "public" in a ridiculous manner. It would never work. Not in a free society, anyway.
"Something can be covered and there can still be a picture of it... either by utilizing specifically crafted shooting angles, which would be evidenced by looking at the photograph itself, or utilizing sophisticated surveillance systems which *can* image directly through clothing. Intent to not be seen naked, as I said, would be implied by virtue of wearing clothes in the first place, and any other alleged intent would require consent. "
Now you're really reaching. I was discussing reasonable everyday circumstances. Now you're way off talking about something very different. I have no particular desire to go there.
It doesn't matter what I think... what matters is what a judge thinks. If a person has doubts about the matter, they shouldn't do it.... Arguing otherwise only defends the sick people who do this shit.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"It doesn't matter what I think... what matters is what a judge thinks. If a person has doubts about the matter, they shouldn't do it.... Arguing otherwise only defends the sick people who do this shit."
No, what matters is what reasonable people think. The U.S. is a Common Law country, and as such, laws are designed around the "Reasonable Man" principle (increasingly called "reasonable person"). That means a reasonable citizen, not a judge.
Judges DO have to decide what a reasonable person in public might think; but they are required to do so from the point of view of that reasonable person, not from their position up on that bench.
Like I said... the day after this occurred, a new law was passed which does pretty much exactly what I was suggesting... if you have a problem with it, take it up with the state.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This WHOLE THREAD started with MY OPINION on what the law should be. YOU decided to argue with me. Now you're hiding behind the law that was passed... which was what I was talking about in the first place.
You argue in circles. I have nothing further to say here.
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?