Here in Connecticut, they call me "camera toe".
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 ...
wow
Pretty soon all perversions are going to be legal
Sorry my crotch is not public, take a pix I’ll bust your face
This is probably the only time in the past 100 years that a Massachusetts court has interpreted a law strictly.
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?
Pasting a picture of Helen Thomas on your underwear would pretty well permanently stop that.
Another legacy of empowerment and “coming out of the closet” abuse rulings.
Stand by for Google Shoes...
She would be guilty of public indecency and parties in support also.
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.
Easy fix!
A couple of sentences to amend the current law should fix the problem.
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.
Here in Connecticut, they call me "camera toe".
If that’s what the law says, the ruling is correct. The law should be fixed.
I’d take the opportunity to find out if judges go commando under those robes.
MA endorses and holds ‘slut marches’ every year.
what’s the problem? not getting paid for it?
is there a redeeming need to repost this three or four times
Exactly. That’s what the legislature plans to do. The ruling on the law, as it stands, was correct.
Got the name all picked out...GoogleToe
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.
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.