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

Skip to comments.

Mass. High Court: Subway Upskirt Photos Not Illegal
CBSboston ^

Posted on 03/06/2014 7:28:04 AM PST by edcoil

BOSTON (CBS/AP) – Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that a man accused of secretly snapping photos up a woman’s skirt on an MBTA train did not break the law.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lawsuit; perverts; ruling
Seems liberal Mass has the war on women.
1 posted on 03/06/2014 7:28:04 AM PST by edcoil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: edcoil

I guess the judge is a shutterbug to.


2 posted on 03/06/2014 7:29:08 AM PST by hometoroost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Don’t wear kilts...................


3 posted on 03/06/2014 7:34:14 AM PST by Red Badger (LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Well it all depends on your perspective —


4 posted on 03/06/2014 7:34:24 AM PST by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Don’t wear kilts...

If you DO wear a kilt on the MBTA, you'd best be sportin' a pistol in your sporran, laddie. Else you'll be riskin' a good beating.

5 posted on 03/06/2014 7:38:06 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hometoroost

What part of a man’s brain would agree that this is sound judgment?

So it would be okay if I took photos of your wife’s panties by using a camera I deliberately placed on my foot aimed up at her concealed private parts for self-pleasuring later? Right, judge?

The guy must be a liberal sexual deviant on the side. A lot of judges are.


6 posted on 03/06/2014 7:38:11 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Then it shouldn’t be illegal to beat the holy hell out of anyone caught taking such photos.


7 posted on 03/06/2014 7:39:45 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (http://jonah2eight.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Under The Scotsman’s Kilt

A Scotsman clad in kilt left the bar one evening fair
And one could tell by how he walked he’d drunk more than his share
He staggered on until he could no longer keep his feet
Then stumbled off into the grass to sleep beside the street.

chorus:
Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
He stumbled off into the grass to sleep beside the street.

Later on two young and lovely girls just happened by,
And one says to the other with a twinkle in her eye
You see yon sleeping Scotsman who is young and handsome built
I wonder if it’s true what they don’t wear beneath their kilt.

Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
I wonder if it’s true what they don’t wear beneath their kilt.

They crept up to the sleeping Scotsman quiet as could be
Then lifted up his kilt about an inch so they could see
And there behold for them to view beneath his Scottish skirt
Was nothing but what God had graced him with upon his birth

Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
There was nothing there but what God gave upon his birth

They marveled for a moment then one said we’d best be gone
But let’s leave a present for our friend before we move along
They took a blue silk ribbon and they tied it in a bow
Around the bonnie spar that the Scot’s lifted kilt did show

Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
Around the bonnie spar that the Scot’s lifted kilt did show

The Scotsman woke to nature’s call and stumbled toward a tree
Behind a bush he lifts his kilt and gawks at what he sees
Then in a startled voice he says to what’s before his eyes
He said, “Lad I don’t know where you’ve been but I see you won first
prize”

Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
He said, “Lad I don’t know where you’ve been but I see you won first prize”


8 posted on 03/06/2014 7:40:17 AM PST by Red Badger (LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
If the “woman” in question was “transgendered” the ruling would have been different.
9 posted on 03/06/2014 7:40:20 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

This means I can’t wear a skirt anymore but more especially neither can my elementary aged daughters.

Modest women will all be wearing shalwar khameez (dresses with pants underneath).

Only women who want to have their privates photograhed will wear skirts.


10 posted on 03/06/2014 7:43:25 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Mae West: Lad, is that a pistol in your sporran, or are you just happy to see me?

CC


11 posted on 03/06/2014 7:44:37 AM PST by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
QUOTE: "What part of a man’s brain would agree that this is sound judgment?"

The judge agreed with the Prosecutor, and stated "...that while the prosecution’s “proposition is eminently reasonable,” the current writing of the law that Robertson was charged under does not cover that particular circumstance."

The law, as written, has 5 criteria:

That the defendant willfully photographed, videotaped, or electronically surveilled; the subject was another person who was nude or partially nude; the defendant did so with the intent to secretly conduct or hide his photographing activity; the defendant conducted such activity when the other person was in a place and circumstance where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being “so photographed”; and the defendant did so without the other person’s knowledge or consent.

The judge is correct in this matter, and a different ruling would be judicial activism, which we all protest, methinks. They are currently advocating rewriting the law, or adding another to cover these circumstances.

12 posted on 03/06/2014 7:46:50 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

If it were the Judge’s daughter or wife,
it would be different.

THEN it would be an assault and battery.


13 posted on 03/06/2014 7:47:01 AM PST by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes
QUOTE: "This means I can’t wear a skirt anymore but more especially neither can my elementary aged daughters."

Simplest solution is to pass a law to prohibit looking up skirts. What used to be common sense now has to have legislation, for we have abandoned our moral principles and underpinnings. Nothing is "immoral" anymore.

14 posted on 03/06/2014 7:50:14 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

This means I can’t wear a skirt anymore but more especially neither can my elementary aged daughters.
+++++++++
Out here in Leftafornia the girls appear not to know what a skirt is. They understand “jeans” and they understand “shorts” but somewhere along the line they failed to learn that girls wear dresses.

AFAIK, this is a universal truth at least in the “wear anything you like except skirts or dresses” public schools.


15 posted on 03/06/2014 7:54:42 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

Unfortunately it would be a 2500 page law. Then we’d have to look at it to see what was in it...


16 posted on 03/06/2014 7:55:37 AM PST by illiac (If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Since we have lowered the value of human lift to that of animals, if we start sniffing each others butts like dogs, the court should also find that legal.


17 posted on 03/06/2014 7:56:19 AM PST by edcoil (Realism is only a socially accepted form of pessimism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

Around here we still wear skirts to Church especially. And in the summer that’s way more common than elsewhere just because they’re cooler than either pants or shorts. My kids love to wear dresses in the summer. And they can, just not when we go to the store or church anymore.


18 posted on 03/06/2014 8:01:26 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

Precisely. If the women in question had wanted everyone to see their panties and crotch in same they’d have not worn skirts to begin with and made sure to sit immodestly.


19 posted on 03/06/2014 8:02:29 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

“Burquas ho!”


20 posted on 03/06/2014 8:09:28 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

Girls in California still wear clothes? Huh.


21 posted on 03/06/2014 8:10:34 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

People think I’m kidding. This ruling means that any woman who wears a skirt is ‘asking for it’ to have photos of her privates posted on the internet. Or those of her skirt wearing minor daughters. Because if she’d wanted to be seen in her panties she wouldn’t have worn the skirt to begin with.


22 posted on 03/06/2014 8:15:37 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

Skorts may offer some protection, if you are familiar with this somewhat new product.


23 posted on 03/06/2014 8:24:18 AM PST by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger

The undergarment still resembles panties. We prefer not to showcase our legs in public. We’re modest that way. Unless the ‘undergarment’ part of the skort is to the knees this really isn’t a solution.


24 posted on 03/06/2014 8:27:16 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

The Bryan Bowers version is a great drinking song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoUV5d09JZw


25 posted on 03/06/2014 8:34:36 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger
Skorts may offer some protection, if you are familiar with this somewhat new product.

Skorts have been around since at least the early 1980s (probably earlier), as they were common on the girls in my Jr. High... Unfortunately, it's been that long since I was in Jr. High.

26 posted on 03/06/2014 8:36:44 AM PST by IYAS9YAS (Has anyone seen my tagline? It was here yesterday. I seem to have misplaced it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

Hence my phrase, ‘somewhat new’. I didn’t see them until my kids came along.


27 posted on 03/06/2014 8:38:12 AM PST by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

The judges felt that there should be a law against this behavior, but the present law as written did not allow them to find this clearly wrong behavior illegal. The law as written said the victim had to be in a place where there was an expectation of privacy. For once justices are followed the law. I feel we are a nation of laws. Even if justices don’t like a law, they are obliged to follow it.


28 posted on 03/06/2014 9:01:52 AM PST by Essie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

So the punching into the ground of the guy by the bf/husband would be illegal. Up skirt photo’s is a perversion and an intrusion and could be considered sexual assault. It’s not any different than peeping tom’s - that’s illegal.


29 posted on 03/06/2014 9:02:22 AM PST by SkyDancer (I Believe In The Law Until It Intereferes With Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Ah, the Sleeping Scotsman. One of the best ‘a capella’ songs ever.


30 posted on 03/06/2014 9:19:19 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

> The judge is correct in this matter, and a different ruling would be judicial activism, which we all protest, methinks. They are currently advocating rewriting the law, or adding another to cover these circumstances.

Well attorneys are wordsmiths and skilled liars (j/k well maybe not sometimes...: ) yeah I can see what you are saying if you interpret the law as stated. I would have thought a personl would have some expectation of privacy if it took a man lying underneath her or a camera aimed up at her genials to take a picture of it though...; )


31 posted on 03/06/2014 9:32:07 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: illiac

> Unfortunately it would be a 2500 page law. Then we’d have to look at it to see what was in it...

Look up underneath it to see what’s in it...: )


32 posted on 03/06/2014 9:33:34 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

The article I read said the ruling was based on the law’s requirement that the subject be nude or partially nude as well, and riding on the train with your clothes on you are not nude.


33 posted on 03/06/2014 9:53:00 AM PST by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
Look up underneath it to see what’s in it...

LOL

34 posted on 03/06/2014 9:56:57 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

This was obviously a “peeping tom” law designed to outlaw a guy looking through your window to photograph you getting undressed. Which is the clearest case of invasion of privacy. These laws also used to require that the photographer be trespassing on your property.

There is something to be said for the idea that if you show people something in public, they may look at it or even photograph it.

I would outlaw this behavior as a public nuisance or something like that.

I’ve seen these perverts where they just look and don’t have a camera but they are going nuts to try and look under a table or something. I guess it should be illegal but at some point you are making it a crime to see what is in front of you in public.

So that’s why you want to be careful in drafting these laws.


35 posted on 03/06/2014 9:59:21 AM PST by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Williams

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

This is now legal in MA.

If you are female and wear a skirt you’re as good as asking for it.


36 posted on 03/06/2014 10:01:13 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger
Hence my phrase, ‘somewhat new’. I didn’t see them until my kids came along.

Yeah. I thought about that. I don't consider myself somewhat new, since I was already a teen in those days... Ugh.

37 posted on 03/06/2014 10:06:28 AM PST by IYAS9YAS (Has anyone seen my tagline? It was here yesterday. I seem to have misplaced it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
The judge is correct in this matter, and a different ruling would be judicial activism, which we all protest, methinks. They are currently advocating rewriting the law, or adding another to cover these circumstances.

Then the court should order the Massachusetts legislature to pass a law, and further order the Governor to sign it. There's precedence: That's how they got Homo Marriage in MA. That and Romney liked the idea, and didn't need to be ordered.

38 posted on 03/06/2014 10:15:08 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS; ArtDodger

Yer both a coupla whippersnappers.

:^D


39 posted on 03/06/2014 10:19:56 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

They didn’t tell them to pass a law, they told them the law they did pass didn’t accomplish the goal. How the legislature handles that is up to them.


40 posted on 03/06/2014 10:21:40 AM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

These laws have to be written properly. How can you convict someone of taking pictures of a “nude or partially nude” victim when the victim has their clothes on? it doesn’t work.

I would agree that people using mirrors, lying on the floor etc to see up a skirt should be illegal, but the law has to say so.

For instance, I think it can be illegal to have “burglary tools” so likewise it can be illegal to have shoe mirrors, etc.

But the law didn’t say that, it was designed to outlaw someone peeking in a bedroom window.


41 posted on 03/06/2014 11:11:19 AM PST by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

You are not wrong and that is the danger of liberals using judicial activism.


42 posted on 03/06/2014 11:12:19 AM PST by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

We’re slip sliding away.


43 posted on 03/06/2014 11:16:55 AM PST by hometoroost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I’m sure the nuns in MA feel the same way you do.

Now let’s decide the odds that MA, where teaching K5 about homosex is mandatory, will pass such a law...


44 posted on 03/06/2014 11:30:42 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hometoroost

lol


45 posted on 03/06/2014 12:20:33 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes

Mass. Legislature already unanimously passed a bill to make it illegal.


46 posted on 03/07/2014 9:00:57 AM PST by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Williams

This is a good thing.

50 years ago someone bending down to deliberately look up womens skirts would first have the crap beaten out of him by bystanders and then get to explain to a judge (or mental health official) what precisely that was all about.


47 posted on 03/07/2014 9:04:55 AM PST by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | 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