Slashdot Mirror
Mass. Legislature Strikes Back: Upskirt Photos Now Officially a Misdemeanor
Just a day after a Massachusetts court said that current state law didn't specifically address "upskirt" snapshots (and so left taking them legal in itself, however annoying or invasive), an alert Massachusetts legislature has crafted and passed a bill to fix the glitch, and gotten it signed by the governor as well. As reported by the BBC, "The bill states that anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent
should face a misdemeanor charge. The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18." The New York Daily News points out this bill became a law without so much as a public hearing.
Age difference should matter when you're talking about people under 18. A sixteen-year-old who does this to another 16-year-old should be guilty of no more than a misdemeanor if an adult would be guilty of no more than a misdemeanor for the same behavior with another adult.
if only developers fixed glitches this fast.....or any other governments for that matter
will work for dragon quest localization
So if I'm recording my girlfriend at the beach and some topless 5 year old girl wanders through the frame or happens to be in the background and her mom gets a bug up her ass about it... I'm charged with a felony? No thanks. If you don't want to chance it ending up on film, don't make it visible in public.
Interesting.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I got four letters for you:J-U-R-Y. A panel of reasonable people will be able to interpret the meaning of the upskirt law, and be able to differentiate between pervs on the subway and accidental photo bombs the beach. That's the whole point of juries and why they are such an important part of the justice system. No need to be a slippery-slope absolutist.
Not at all what the law covers. No clandestine photographing being done. What a lame extreme to promote.
When it comes to cases of moral, juries are worse than worthless. No one will stand up defending the rights of a potential sexual predator, even if probably innocent. Whether there's actual guilt or not, the jurors are under a tremendous social pressure to not appear to defend child pornography.
I am fairly certain that lawyers strongly recommend that defendants should do pretty much anything to avoid a jury trial, even if innocent. Because they will be found guilty.
Sure, it'll just cost you $10,000 for a lawyer.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Despite the prior news story about a guy getting off for upskirt photos, this law seems like a solution looking for a problem. Has upskirt photography been such a large problem in Massachusetts that a law was required?
I would have thought basic social pressures and shaming (lets admit - people doing this *are* particularly creepy) would do a better job at limiting the number of offenders, and the rest would do it anyways.
With a law on the books, particularly one with the possibility for felony charges, I wonder how many times we are going to read about misapplication of the law. Do you technically run afoul of the law anytime you take a photo where a woman in a skirt is elevated from your current location, such as a place with an elevated walkway? Do you risk arrest for taking a picture in a location with an escalator or glass-walled elevator like many shopping malls? even if you are close to neither one?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
With all the talk of "gridlock", it's there so that law is not used to enforce ideas that are not clearly shared by the majority of the population. When something clearly needs to be made into law, there is no gridlock. This thing took 2 days to go from "oh, shit I can't believe it's legal" to "there is a law to stop this now."
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Any airports or ports in Mass?
If so TSA beware, imaging my junk without my express permission is now a felony in Massachusetts.
Here, you should RTFL:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section105
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
I really hope that "21/2 years" is a typo on the Mass. legislature's website, and not the actual text of the law.
You Commit Three Felonies a Day.
If I look closely at you and your life, I will find something to incriminate you.
I have NO doubt what-so-ever.
So, about this being a "slippery-slope absolutist"?
Considering it took less than 24 hours to make this law you know it's a heaping pile of garbage. It takes time to craft a good law, more than 24 hours.
In the US jurors can acquit for any reason and aren't required to say what it was. Usually they rule on findings of fact, but that is not a requirement as far as I know. There are a number of organizations proselytizing what they believe are the full "rights" of a jury, for instance, the fully informed jury association.
This is often derided by those who fear that racist jurors will acquit criminals whose victims are a discriminated against group and praised by those who fear that the the overwhelming body of existing law can be used against pretty much anyone - it's impossible t know the entirety of the law and so its impossible to avoid ever breaking it.
At the moment my fear of tyranny outweighs my fear of racists, though. I don't know if that will always be the case or if that historically would have been a poor assessment generally, but I think we need to think long and hard about ameliorating the potential issues of wrongful acquittals in other ways before risking an increase of wrongful convictions.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
If a law is made this quickly, it could ALSO mean it just seems like such a common sense thing to the people involved, there's really nothing to argue about.
Personally, I think I'd rather have legislation made this way (flawed though it may be) than people passing multiple hundred page long bills that NOBODY could read through and fully understand before they're voted on.
Simple, quickly passed legislation can also be easily understood by juries and amended, as needed. The massive stuff with hundreds of hidden side-effects just catches people by surprise, time and time again, for decades to come.
If only you could benefit from that before you spend your life savings on a lawyer (non-refundable), get fired, and have your name dragged through the media.
That and if judges would stop trying to weed out jurors that believe in nullification.
At one time, prosecutors usually did a decent job of not prosecuting the obviously innocent (or perhaps we just didn't hear of their misconduct as much), but these days they seem to have little care for guilt or innocence as long as they get their conviction.
OK, if she stands still long enough for someone to carve or sculpt a likeness then I gotta think she's kinda into it...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graven
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Welcome to modern politics. Politicians do whatever they want and don;t need to consult the public at all. And when motivated enough, these politicians can pass all sorts of legislation in a day. In the recent past Illinois lawmakers introduced a bill requiring teachers to teach until they are 67; passed the bill in both house and senate; had the bill signed by the governor. All of this in one single day. Teachers union, was shocked and has been fighting this ever since, but since it is "the law" they don;t have a lot to go on. Everyone else in Illinois has been on pins and needles knowing that the government can in a day vote your career into misery.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Massachusetts lawmakers crack down on "upskirt" photos
That's Fark quality.
"Before I vote on this here law," drawled the Boston polit...sorry hold on.
"Before I vote on this heah law," Kennedied the Boston politician, "I'm goin-guh to need to see some of these so-called 'up her skirt' photo-garaffs to make shua they are a vile as suggested. Good. Ok thank you. I will be busy studying them at home. Hold my calls."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
because we all agreed that he showed his daughters porn.
So?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Why did such laws not originally exist? The question is essential, the answer very disturbing.
Under the PRINCIPLE of English law, which is mostly the basis of Law in lands derived from England, like the USA, laws apply equally to citizens and 'agents' of the State, like police. The reason laws against covert photography were missing was because, until very recently, such laws would also apply to people working for the State, and governments did NOT want their own people limited by such laws.
Things have changed. Since the 1980s, the sheeple have been subject to non-stop propaganda attacks that define a new "you and them" understanding, where the State is understood to be the MASTER of the sheeple, not its servant. When enough sheeple took it for granted that the State acted as if it were "above the Law of Man", those in power could exploit this new mindset to the max.
Now, the vast majority of sheeple see no issue with a law that bans THEM from all kinds of acts that, if done by an employee of the State, will attract no penalty.
So, your school can provide laptops to your children to take home, SPECIFICALLY for the covert purpose of video recording your children in their own bedrooms at all times, and when this program is revealed, the highest courts of the USA declare such acts completely legal. And not legal in the sense that someone had 'forgotten' to create a law describing such as a crime. NO- legal in the sense that the State, and those that the State employs, are above the Laws that control you, the sheeple.
Look had broadly the new, UNCONSTITUTIONAL (because the new law involved no public consultation) law is defined. It is a classic 'catch all' that allows ANYONE engaged in public photography to be arrested on suspicion. YOU wanted a law punishing pervs who were obviously sticking a camera up a woman's skirt. What you got is a law that fires first, and asks questions later.
Take a photo of a child (which is scarily defined as even a 17-year old) in a swimsuit in a public venue, and you've broken this law. You MIGHT win in court, but the act of taking such a photo is certainly grounds for arrest.
Using a camera to take a photograph of a full dressed women without her consent is now also grounds for arrest. WHY? Because your INTENT may be infringing- you may have removed the IR filter (or be using a camera sensitive to IR), so that IR transparent clothing 'vanishes' on the recorded image, revealing the 'intimate parts' that make your act of photography a crime under this new law. Neither the woman nor the arresting officer can prove you are NOT doing this by looking at your camera. And unlike court, a police person is allowed to follow a "guilty until proven innocent" approach if they have any reasonable grounds to suspect guilt.
Why would Massachusetts want such an over-reaching and catch-all version of this law? Do I REALLY have to ask? They stomp all over your rights, in the name of public decency, while codifying their ability to do the very thing this new law is supposed to prevent. Will Bill Gates NSA spy platform, the Xbox One, suddenly become illegal in children's bedrooms in this state? Hahahahahahaha. Most of you sheeple are so thick, you fall over yourselves to praise Gates for helping create a real-life '1984' world.
In the US jurors can acquit for any reason and aren't required to say what it was.
Yes, but I hear if you utter the words "jury nullification" during selection, you won't make it into the jury. Might actually be a good strategy if you want out.
Apparently you might even be accused of jury tampering for spreading the word http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...
How about you look at the actual law;
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,
Your scenario does not fit on 3 points:
with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity
Unless you hide your camera, you are in the clear.
under or around the person’s clothing
A bare chest has no clothing for the photograph to be under or around.
a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public
A bare chest is obviously visible to the public
It all seems reasonable to me. The existing law had a bug. Nobody ever intended for upskirt pictures to be legal. The judge did the right thing: reported the bug. The developers of laws did the right thing: they fixed the bug. Now the legal situation is better than it was.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The last time I was in voir dire, the judge asked us to swear under oath that we would judge only the facts and not the law. When I indicated that I could not swear to that, I was excused from the jury.
Law doesn't say it has to be hidden or clandestine...the jury exists only to determine guilt based on the law.
Maybe you should read the actual law before pre-empting what the judge might say, it clearly includes the words "intent", "secrecy" and "privacy" in the following excerpt - "[Thou shall not photograph people's wobbly bits] with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed".
So the prosecutor needs a bit more than just the video, he has to demonstrate the defendant intended to film the victim's "private parts", was attempting to conceal his true intent, and that the victim had an expectation of privacy. A naked toddler running around on a public beach clearly does not have an expectation of privacy and it would be very difficult to demonstrate secrecy and intent in such a scenario (assuming the defence lawyer is not in a coma). Why the chief prosecutor would bring such a case before the judge will also be questioned by any judge who (in your own words) is just interested in what "the law states". OTOH making upskirt videos of strangers with a hidden camera in your shoe is now clearly illegal.
As a non-American the jury nullification thing doesn't apply to me, nor do I have to suffer elected judges who don't have a clue what they are doing. However the concept of jury nullification is interesting, a majority vote by a jury that the law is unjust should at least delay a verdict until the legislators have publically reviewed both the case and the law. With such a system (US*) public prosecutors may become less keen to use bogus charges as bargaining chips to score a "confession" on a less "scary" charge.
* - Google "prison population by nation".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge.
Anyone who videotapes, OR.... ?
Step 1. Run naked across the field of view of the camera "accidentally"
Step 2. See the camera, call the police
Step 3. Press charges against property owner for violation of upskirt law
Step 4. Profit
The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18."
Double-score if you're a 17-year-old obnoxious young lady; now the fixed camera operator will become a felon.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
You'd be mistaken