> 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...; )
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.