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 ...
Girls in California still wear clothes? Huh.
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.
Skorts may offer some protection, if you are familiar with this somewhat new product.
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.
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.
Hence my phrase, ‘somewhat new’. I didn’t see them until my kids came along.
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.
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.
Ah, the Sleeping Scotsman. One of the best ‘a capella’ songs ever.
> 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...; )
> 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...: )
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.
LOL
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.
This is now legal in MA.
If you are female and wear a skirt you’re as good as asking for it.
Yeah. I thought about that. I don't consider myself somewhat new, since I was already a teen in those days... Ugh.
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.
Yer both a coupla whippersnappers.
:^D
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.
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.