It sounds like he’s a perv who is trying to get up as close to the legal line as possible.
Which, in that way, I concur with the judges. If I read this right, he simply took photos from a long distance at the butts, breasts, and crotches. This is different than upskirt or other forms of voyeurism where a woman is reasonably certain others will not see their private areas. By filming then in public, he’s not technically violating anything.
It’s little different than a man staring a woman’s breasts in public. It’s rude and creepy but it’s not something the law need be involved in. He could very well take full body photos with a high quality DSLR and zoom in the favored body parts.
If we made a law against what he did, that’s something he’d probably move to. What then? Ban photographs in public.
I think the line is set fairly reasonably.
From the article: a fourth woman was checking out air fresheners at the Dollar Tree when she “felt like someone was standing really close” and turned to see a man with a “really creepy grin” holding a cell phone close to “the right side of her rear end.” She could see the image on his phone. When she protested, Grizzel testified he “grabbed the right side of her rear end and said, ‘Nice (expletive),’” before he fled
If I understand correctly, the judges ruled that touching her was illegal, but filming her close up that way was legal. Egads.
If men couldn’t srare at womens breasts in public, Joe Biden could never leave the house.