Good news for perverts

 
I don't get why it's illegal to be honest. Creepy and desperate, no doubt. But look at it this way...


If the offender doesn't have to make a marked effort, then it's not "peeping". To go further, if a woman is sitting across from you, and you can see her hoo ha, shouldn't she be charged with indecency? So, would this guy have been charged if he was at the pool or beach? Can I no longer check out cleavage when it's put on display for fear of being arrested?

Don't the chance of somebody checking out your beev, pull your damn skirt over your knees. Or maybe sit like a ladies with you legs closed.

I gotta go. I'm busy tying mirrors to my shoes...
 
Slide-by said:
Don't the chance of somebody checking out your beev, pull your damn skirt over your knees. Or maybe sit like a ladies with you legs closed.
Click to expand...

Neither of those methods protect a woman if she is standing up in a skirt, which is what sounds like was happening. He's seated, a woman opts to stand on the bus, he holds his phone below the hem of her skirt and snaps a picture without her knowing.

If this isn't an invasion of privacy, then it would be okay if he were doing it to 8 year old girls, right?
 
WykidWytch said:
Neither of those methods protect a woman if she is standing up in a skirt, which is what sounds like was happening. He's seated, a woman opts to stand on the bus, he holds his phone below the hem of her skirt and snaps a picture without her knowing.

If this isn't an invasion of privacy, then it would be okay if he were doing it to 8 year old girls, right?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Slideby isn't very smart.
 
WykidWytch said:
Neither of those methods protect a woman if she is standing up in a skirt, which is what sounds like was happening. He's seated, a woman opts to stand on the bus, he holds his phone below the hem of her skirt and snaps a picture without her knowing.

If this isn't an invasion of privacy, then it would be okay if he were doing it to 8 year old girls, right?
Click to expand...

That's a pretty big leap from checking out grown women to being a child molester. Damn...
 
eastside_purple said:
Exactly. Slideby isn't very smart.
Click to expand...

I dunno. The Supreme Court agreed. The Prosecutor held the phone at his belt line and said that's what he was doing apparently. He doesn't really even know how this guy committed a crime but wants to charge him? That's pretty vague.
 
eastside_purple said:
So you think it should be legal to stick your camera under a woman's skirt and snap away? :laugh:
Click to expand...

It still doesn't specify if they were standing or sitting really. Any man that says he hasn't snuck a peek at a hot girl in a short skirt sitting at a desk or elsewhere is lying through their teeth.
 
What's the diff then? It is not illegal to take pictures of anybody in public. If you're in the public domain, you're fair game. If a hot chick is sitting across from you with a short skirt showing her goods, she has no expectation of privacy including photos.

The fact remains the prosecutor tried to describe how he was doing it, and placed the camaracamera directly on his belt. To me, that means he was seated, no? And shooting across the isle, unless some chick was hanging over his lap. In which case, he should have just checked her oil.
 
Slide-by said:
That's a pretty big leap from checking out grown women to being a child molester. Damn...
Click to expand...

Didn't say anything about being a child molester. Either the view up a skirt is public domain or it's not. You can't say it's dependent upon age because then that would mean there is a consent issue....and if there's a consent issue, then that blows the whole public domain defense out of the water.
 
WykidWytch said:
Neither of those methods protect a woman if she is standing up in a skirt, which is what sounds like was happening. He's seated, a woman opts to stand on the bus, he holds his phone below the hem of her skirt and snaps a picture without her knowing.

If this isn't an invasion of privacy, then it would be okay if he were doing it to 8 year old girls, right?
Click to expand...

In Indiana, a man who took upskirt photos of a 10 year old had the charges against him dropped because there was no basis for them. A law has since been passed in Indiana in response to that incident.
 
Bob Loblaw said:
In Indiana, a man who took upskirt photos of a 10 year old had the charges against him dropped because there was no basis for them. A law has since been passed in Indiana in response to that incident.
Click to expand...

And that law that was passed protects ALL people, not just minors.
 
WykidWytch said:
Didn't say anything about being a child molester. Either the view up a skirt is public domain or it's not. You can't say it's dependent upon age because then that would mean there is a consent issue....and if there's a consent issue, then that blows the whole public domain defense out of the water.
Click to expand...

Nobody said it's dependent on age, did they? In fact, to get picky, the courts clearly said the "victims" weren't naked. That pretty much killed the "crime" aspect of it. You brought up 8 year olds. I think maybe you need counciling being that was the first thing that popped into your mind. Sicko.
 
frecriss said:
Wouldn't this at least be some form of voyeurism?
Click to expand...

From another article on this same topic:

"The judges sympathized with the notion that a woman should be able to have a reasonable expectation not to have secret photos taken up her skirt when she goes out in public, but ruled that current state law does not address that. Massachusetts’ “Peeping Tom” laws, as written, only protect women from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Since upskirt photos are taken of fully clothed women in public, they don’t count, according to the court."

"Under most voyeurism laws, women must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is difficult to prove when she is in public."

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/05/3365631/massachusetts-upskirt-legal/
 
I understand the law likely didn't anticipate cellphone cameras in this venue, where women don't know they are being photographed or if someone is reading an email. I would expect the law to change to protect privacy in this regard. Sorry pervs.
 
Bob Loblaw said:
From another article on this same topic:

"The judges sympathized with the notion that a woman should be able to have a reasonable expectation not to have secret photos taken up her skirt when she goes out in public, but ruled that current state law does not address that. Massachusetts’ “Peeping Tom” laws, as written, only protect women from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Since upskirt photos are taken of fully clothed women in public, they don’t count, according to the court."

"Under most voyeurism laws, women must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is difficult to prove when she is in public."

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/05/3365631/massachusetts-upskirt-legal/
Click to expand...

I think the judge has this one right.

Thinking out loud here..

Every man that's walked the earth, has been in a few situations where they've been in a position to see up a women's skirt. And most men, aren't adverse to such opportunities (no matter what politically correct mumbo jumbo is spewed here)

In an age wear everyone has camera's on them, and women can put themselves in compromising position to where others can see up their skirt in public...

My advice to women, wear clean underwear.
 
MOUNT-UNION82 said:
I think the judge has this one right.

Thinking out loud here..

Every man that's walked the earth, has been in a few situations where they've been in a position to see up a women's skirt. And most men, aren't adverse to such opportunities (no matter what politically correct mumbo jumbo is spewed here)

In an age wear everyone has camera's on them, and women can put themselves in compromising position to where others can see up their skirt in public...

My advice to women, wear clean underwear.
Click to expand...

MU supports a pervert's right to take a pic up a woman's skirt. I'm not surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top