Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Speaker DeLeo (Mass.) vows to fix law after ruling says ‘upskirting’ is legal
Boston.com ^ | March 5, 2014 | Martin Finucane / Globe Staff

Posted on 03/05/2014 5:33:14 PM PST by kingattax

The state’s highest court says “upskirting,” the practice of secretly photographing under a woman’s skirt, is not prohibited by state law.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said today that a state law intended to prohibit “Peeping Tom” voyeurism of completely or partially undressed people did not apply to people who take pictures of people who are fully clothed.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo said this afternoon that the Legislature would immediately begin looking at ways of closing the loophole in 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 statement.

The high court’s ruling today came in the case of a man who allegedly took photos under the dresses of women on Green Line trolleys.

The court focused on the language of the law, which prohibits secret photography of “a person ... who is partially nude.”

“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering [private] 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 a unanimous ruling written by Justice Margot Botsford.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: celebratediversity; glbtv; voyeur; voyeurism

1 posted on 03/05/2014 5:33:14 PM PST by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kingattax

wow

Pretty soon all perversions are going to be legal


2 posted on 03/05/2014 5:34:21 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Sorry my crotch is not public, take a pix I’ll bust your face


3 posted on 03/05/2014 5:37:18 PM PST by svcw (Not 'hope and change' but 'dopes in chains')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

This is probably the only time in the past 100 years that a Massachusetts court has interpreted a law strictly.


4 posted on 03/05/2014 5:40:57 PM PST by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

If you’re a woman and you are sitting on a train so that others can see your crotch why is it worse to take a picture of what can already be seen?


5 posted on 03/05/2014 5:43:38 PM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Pasting a picture of Helen Thomas on your underwear would pretty well permanently stop that.


6 posted on 03/05/2014 5:44:32 PM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Another legacy of empowerment and “coming out of the closet” abuse rulings.


7 posted on 03/05/2014 5:45:05 PM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Stand by for Google Shoes...


8 posted on 03/05/2014 5:45:47 PM PST by DanielRedfoot (Creepy Ass Cracker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

She would be guilty of public indecency and parties in support also.


9 posted on 03/05/2014 5:49:27 PM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

These ‘photographers’ put cameras on their shoes so they can see up your skirt while you’re standing next to them. You needn’t be flashing anyone publically. Just walking on a public sidewalk will do.


10 posted on 03/05/2014 5:51:31 PM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

Easy fix!
A couple of sentences to amend the current law should fix the problem.


11 posted on 03/05/2014 5:53:36 PM PST by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then or now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Would somebody nuke the state and send us pictures as proof?

In fact, take out most of New England. They are useless communist cesspools of treason and mental disease.

If the Puritans could come back today and see what has happened there, they could go back in time and land in North Carolina.


12 posted on 03/05/2014 6:01:06 PM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Here in Connecticut, they call me "camera toe".

13 posted on 03/05/2014 6:10:58 PM PST by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

If that’s what the law says, the ruling is correct. The law should be fixed.


14 posted on 03/05/2014 6:25:10 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I’d take the opportunity to find out if judges go commando under those robes.


15 posted on 03/05/2014 7:21:06 PM PST by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

MA endorses and holds ‘slut marches’ every year.

what’s the problem? not getting paid for it?


16 posted on 03/05/2014 7:22:34 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

is there a redeeming need to repost this three or four times


17 posted on 03/05/2014 7:37:08 PM PST by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Exactly. That’s what the legislature plans to do. The ruling on the law, as it stands, was correct.


18 posted on 03/05/2014 7:50:23 PM PST by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DanielRedfoot

Got the name all picked out...GoogleToe


19 posted on 03/05/2014 8:23:30 PM PST by Fedupwithit (Your opinion: It's all yours....don't expect me to listen to it, or even acknowledge it..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes
Trolley riders alerted MBTA Transit Police in August 2010 that a man appeared to be taking photographs of women, including one instance in which he appeared to be attempting to photograph a woman’s crotch area, the court said. Transit Police set up a decoy operation the next day involving a female undercover officer wearing a skirt. Robertson allegedly took pictures of her, focusing on her crotch area, and he was arrested, the court said.

Says nothing about cameras on his shoes.

If you are in a public place you can expect no right to privacy. That's been settled many times by the courts.

20 posted on 03/06/2014 2:26:49 AM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
If the Puritans could come back today and see what has happened there, they would go back in time and land in North Carolina.

You don't know just how prophetic that statement was.
My ancestors came over on the ship Good Fortune and they were going to be rich on harvesting pine tar from the pine tree.
They landed in the Hudson river valley and the whole settlement almost perished. They found out that up here they were the wrong type of pine tree. They should have landed in the Carolinas

21 posted on 03/06/2014 2:59:50 AM PST by lucky american (Progressives are attacking our rights and y'all will sit there and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Are you saying that you’d be OK if some guy did that to your wife or daughter?


22 posted on 03/06/2014 4:46:28 AM PST by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

“Are you saying that you’d be OK if some guy did that to your wife or daughter?”

Way below average strawman.


23 posted on 03/06/2014 4:58:36 AM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

I believe your objection was that the location of the camera was not given in the article. The title of the piece referred to “upskirting”, the physics of which implies that the position of the camera is distinctly below the picture-taker’s waist. Even if the law does not explicitly prohibit such acts, I would think that anyone with a remote sense of morality would consider photography of that sort to be out of bounds. But, if the words of the law are all that matter, then you have defined your position. Mine differs from that.


24 posted on 03/06/2014 5:35:49 AM PST by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

I was just telling you that this wasn’t a case where women were sitting immodestly and ‘everyone’ could see their panties.

It’s a case where women are simply walking on a public street and the perp is upskirting them. By using a camera on his shoes. Or pretending to drop something and using his cell phone to take a picture up their skirts. Could easily happen to your wife or daughter too if they wear skirts. May already have.

http://www.salon.com/2008/11/25/upskirting/

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/man-took-upskirt-pictures-of-women-with-shoe-camera-1-5183972

etc.

What this ruling means is that I, as a parent, can no longer permit my elementary aged daughters to wear skirts in public. Unless they’re wearing pants or jeans underneath.

If you want to understand what this is really about, do a search on ‘upskirt’. In the future, only immodest women who wish to have their privates photographed and posted on porn sites will wear skirts. Modest women will wear shalwar khameez.


25 posted on 03/06/2014 6:58:07 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

There is no indication in this story that the man used a shoe camera.


26 posted on 03/06/2014 9:38:59 AM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/us/court-says-massachusetts-law-doesnt-ban-photos-up-skirts.html

He used his cell phone.

This guy used a shoecam:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/pervert-used-secret-camera-on-shoe-to-take-upskirt-pictures-of-women-in-belfast-shopping-centre-29340640.html

Does your wife wear a skirt when she goes shopping? She now has no expectation that the man who innocently bumps into her hasn’t taken a photograph of her privates.


27 posted on 03/06/2014 9:44:51 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes
I was just telling you that this wasn’t a case where women were sitting immodestly and ‘everyone’ could see their panties.

Actually I think it is. They set the guy up by having a women cop sit in a seat on the trolley and showing her crotch. How else could he have taken a picture of it? This in NOT about a shoe camera.

28 posted on 03/07/2014 2:35:52 AM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

The ruling affects both.

Hopefully none of your family’s women folk live in MA.

Because shoe cameras are legal there right now.


29 posted on 03/07/2014 5:35:40 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes
The ruling affects both.

IF you say so. I don't see it that way. I see it affecting taking pictures of people in a public place sitting on a seat.

BTW, would you object to someone taking pictures of women sunning on a beach. Taking pics with a long lens?

30 posted on 03/07/2014 6:34:04 AM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

If an elementary aged schoolgirl was sitting improperly on a bus would you have a problem with someone taking crotch shots of her?

BTW, you’re the only one who thinks this only applies to grown women who sit improperly in public places. MA realizes this includes the shoe cam perps as well and is rushing to make upskirting illegal.


31 posted on 03/07/2014 6:42:31 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

“If an elementary aged schoolgirl was sitting improperly on a bus would you have a problem with someone taking crotch shots of her?”

Would you have someone arrested for looking at her crotch?


32 posted on 03/07/2014 9:56:08 AM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

“BTW, you’re the only one who thinks this only applies to grown women who sit improperly in public places. MA realizes this includes the shoe cam perps as well and is rushing to make upskirting illegal.”

The case is about taking pictures of a grown woman.


33 posted on 03/07/2014 9:57:46 AM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

But the ruling applies to everyone.


34 posted on 03/07/2014 10:16:52 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes
But the ruling applies to everyone.

Who is everyone?

“If an elementary aged schoolgirl was sitting improperly on a bus would you have a problem with someone taking crotch shots of her?”

Would you have someone arrested for looking at her crotch?

35 posted on 03/07/2014 11:51:22 AM PST by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Do you think it’s OK for someone to take pictures of it?

50 years ago someone staring at her crotch would have the crap beat out of him by fellow passengers.

And everyone is everyone. Nuns standing in line to board public transporatation are fair game. Ditto the Duggar daughters. Ditto your wife or daughters. Stand in line to get on public transportation and wear a skirt? Clearly they’re asking to have their crotch photographed. As long as someone can contort their hand underneath, or shoe with minicam, it’s legal in MA.


36 posted on 03/07/2014 11:54:55 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson