Posted on 03/05/2014 5:33:14 PM PST by kingattax
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
Are you saying that you’d be OK if some guy did that to your wife or daughter?
“Are you saying that you’d be OK if some guy did that to your wife or daughter?”
Way below average strawman.
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.
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/
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.
There is no indication in this story that the man used a shoe camera.
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:
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.
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.
The ruling affects both.
Hopefully none of your family’s women folk live in MA.
Because shoe cameras are legal there right now.
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?
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.
“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?
“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.
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?
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.
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.