[edcoil]

Seems liberal Mass has the war on women.

[hometoroost]

I guess the judge is a shutterbug to.

[Red Badger]

Don’t wear kilts...................

[Uncle Chip]

Well it all depends on your perspective —

[AD from SpringBay]

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

[Gay State Conservative]

If the “woman” in question was “transgendered” the ruling would have been different.

[Diogenesis]

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

THEN it would be an assault and battery.

[Essie]

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.

[SkyDancer]

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.

[Williams]

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.