'Upskirt' Photos Legal In Massachusetts, Says Court

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by Ving, Oct 11, 2014.

  1. Ving

    Ving Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    50,016
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,412
    Likes Received:
    6,689
    Looks like it's still a man's world.....

    'Upskirt' Photos Legal In Massachusetts, Says Court

    [​IMG] | By MARK PRATT
    Posted: 03/05/2014 5:19 pm EST Updated: 03/05/2014 5:59 pm EST

    BOSTON (AP) — A man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday.

    The Supreme Judicial Court overruled a lower court that had upheld charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police who set up a sting after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up female riders' skirts and dresses.

    The ruling immediately prompted top Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to update state law.


    Existing so-called Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas, the court said.

    "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," the court said in its ruling.

    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," the court said.

    The SJC said that while such actions should be illegal, they are not, given the way state law is written.

    Suffolk County prosecutors said their interpretation of the state's Peeping Tom law was that "upskirt" photos are illegal.

    District Attorney Dan Conley said prosecutors are hoping state lawmakers will change the wording of the statute by the end of this legislative session.

    "What we have is not that the Supreme Judicial Court is saying this is ok," Conley said. "The statutory language just didn't quite fit the conduct," he said.

    Conley added that this conduct has become more and more prevalent, and he urged riders to be alert. "This action is immoral and reprehensible; don't do it," he said.

    A telephone message left with Michelle Menken, Robertson's attorney, was not immediately returned.

    Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo said lawmakers are working to find a way to clarify the law.

    "The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law. The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today's technology immediately," DeLeo said in a written statement Wednesday.

    Senate President Therese Murray said she was "stunned and disappointed" with the court ruling. She said the Senate will respond quickly.

    "We have fought too hard and too long for women's rights to take the step backward," Murray said in a statement. "I am in disbelief that the courts would come to this kind of decision and outraged at what it means for women's privacy and public safety."

    Gina Scaramella, executive director of the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, said such photos are a serious invasion of privacy. She said the law needs to catch up to technology.

    "It really is a form of sexual harassment. It's a violation for the person who is unknowingly getting their body photographed," she said. "People wear clothing for a reason and having someone violate that privacy is a real problem."

    MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo said that Transit Police support the Suffolk County District Attorney's efforts to work with the Legislature in rewriting the statute. He did not say what the MBTA could do in the meantime to prevent the activity.

    Pesaturo said that in the past three years, T police have investigated 13 "secretly photographing" cases. In some cases, the alleged offender was issued a court summons. Some remain open investigations. During those three years there was an average of 395 million passenger trips on the MBTA.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Steve LeBlanc and Paige Sutherland contributed to this report.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2014
  2. GaryPuppet

    GaryPuppet Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    234,940
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    25,300
    Likes Received:
    48,625
  3. slats7

    slats7 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    18,785
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1,709
    [​IMG]

    it helps if she cooperates
     
  4. larryluncg

    larryluncg Empty VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    14,293
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    11,143
    Likes Received:
    8,889
    Boston strong
     
    Ganggreen87 and AmishGirl like this.
  5. TheWonk

    TheWonk POTY Music Forum Gold

    Reputations:
    162,977
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    7,273
    Likes Received:
    15,669
  6. Jayla

    Jayla Ou ai-je l'esprit? Gold

    Reputations:
    816,185
    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    31,288
    Likes Received:
    65,313
    :nono:
     
    TeeDonkey and Shortwave98 like this.
  7. Anfkid

    Anfkid Blue Banner Mafia Staff Member

    Reputations:
    391,966
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    59,759
    Likes Received:
    54,865
    @GaryPuppet
     
  8. Pickle Jar

    Pickle Jar Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    55,261
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,690
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    And knuckle sandwiches should be legal too.
     
  9. ShutupMoron

    ShutupMoron Unknown Member VIP

    Reputations:
    78,282
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,075
    Likes Received:
    14,349
    The following day the MA Legislature passed legislation closing the "loophole".

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/justice/massachusetts-upskirt-bill/

    (CNN) -- Modern-day peeping Toms in Massachusetts, the sorts who get their thrills snapping "upskirt" photos on crowded subways, now have their behavior criminalized.

    Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill Friday, according to his office, making photographing or recording video under a person's clothing -- think down a blouse or up a skirt -- a misdemeanor.

    "The legislation makes the secret photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveiling of another person's sexual or other intimate parts, whether under or around a person's clothing or when a reasonable person would believe that the person's intimate parts would not be visible to the public, a crime," Patrick's office said in a prepared statement.

    The crime is punishable by up 2½ years in jail or a fine of up to $5,000.

    Lawmakers hastily drew up and passed the bill Thursday, a day after the state's highest court ruled that current laws against secretly photographing a person in a state of partial nudity don't apply to these sorts of secretive shots.
     
  10. SillyOldMan

    SillyOldMan Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    19,160
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    4,198
  11. Robert Higgins

    Robert Higgins Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    86,762
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,177
    Likes Received:
    20,287
    This is not going to end well.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Pooh bear

    Pooh bear Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    343,550
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    16,542
    Likes Received:
    41,326
    I guess this is the price we've paid for feminism. If you want to act like a slut then pay the consequences.
    NOT that I think it's right to take pics up women's skirts.
     
  13. Ving

    Ving Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    50,016
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,412
    Likes Received:
    6,689
    [​IMG]
     
    SillyOldMan likes this.
  14. MutteringJohn

    MutteringJohn Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    63,412
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    13,173
    Likes Received:
    14,997
    I'm going to wear a GoPro on my shoe and ride the "T" during rush hour.
     
  15. The Snork

    The Snork Well-Known Member VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    3,467
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,560
    Likes Received:
    8,683
    There ought to be some consideration for all those taxes they play
     
  16. Mlaw

    Mlaw Quite Contrarian Gold

    Reputations:
    369,449
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    58,833
    Likes Received:
    23,909
    This is from March, they already fixed the law
     
  17. Ving

    Ving Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    50,016
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,412
    Likes Received:
    6,689


    You're right, I just realized I posted the wrong article, the recent ruling is from DC:


    Upskirt Photos Don't Violate A Woman's Privacy, Rules D.C. Judge

    The Huffington Post | By Alanna Vagianos

    • Posted: 10/10/2014 3:47 pm EDT Updated: 10/10/2014 3:59 pm EDT


      Women can add public peeping toms to the long and ongoing list of things they need to protect themselves from.

      On Sept. 4, Washington, D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna dismissed charges against Christopher Cleveland who was accused of taking pictures up women's skirts without their consent or knowledge at the Lincoln Memorial. Judge McKenna ruled that no person could "have a reasonable expectation of privacy" when "clothed and positioned" in the manner in which these women were in a public space (sitting on steps in a skirt).

      Cleveland, a Virginia-native, was arrested in June 2013 when police found him taking pictures of women sitting on the steps of the memorial who were wearing dresses or skirts. After police arrested Cleveland, they found multiple upskirt photos of women's crotches and butts on his camera. Unfortunately, McKenna's ruling removed these images from being used as evidence.

      “This Court finds that no individual clothed and positioned in such a manner in a public area in broad daylight in the presence of countless other individuals could have a reasonable expectation of privacy," McKenna wrote in her ruling.

      She cited that the photographs "were not 'incidental glimpses' and in fact were images that were exploded to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths, or in fact any lengths whatsoever, to view."

      Although McKenna admitted that Cleveland's actions were "repellent and disturbing" she was not convinced that his actions of "photographing publicly exposed areas of women's clothed and unclothes bodies, including the upper portion of their buttocks and breasts visible through their clothing" was sufficient enough for officers to arrest him.

      FYI: Just because women's bodies are in public, doesn't mean they're public property.
     
  18. Ving

    Ving Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    50,016
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,412
    Likes Received:
    6,689
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    TeeDonkey likes this.
  19. Maddysmom

    Maddysmom Kunt Banned User

    Reputations:
    4,591
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    2,051
    The Creepening
     
  20. TeeDonkey

    TeeDonkey Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    76,873
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,778
    Likes Received:
    4,840
    Is this what the liberals call the ....Republican war on women?