The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the practice does not violate the law — a so-called “peeping Tom” law written 10 years ago — because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude."not nude or partially nude"? Isn't everyone nude or partially nude under their clothes?
The current state law prohibits photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person “is concerned with proscribing peeping Tom voyeurism of people who are completely or partially undressed and, in particular, such voyeurism enhanced by electronic devices,” the court ruled.
So what do I mean about adults knowing the right way to behave? I personally think the right response to someone swiping a camera under your skirt would be a 2x4 or a couple pounds of steel up side the cretin's head. Something that would induce a coma. While a couple of JHPs to the center of mass wouldn't seem like too much of an overreaction to me if it was my daughter, in The Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts that would probably be considered antisocial and get you put away for a long time in a small cage. Like New York, it's a place where self defense is considered criminal.
SO I agree with your comment. Perhaps a bit over the top but I agree with the point. Yet the damage done by an upskirt picture is essentially nil, zip, nada. However the guy who offers your daughter drugs is far worse and his intent is far worse. But we millions of people who want to decriminalize drugs or even make them legal. I feel about someone giving my kids drugs about the same as you do about someone taking an upskirt picture. I think it shoud be considered an assault and that a father should have the right to defend his children from drugs with violence if necessary.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that upskirt pictures should be illegal, I don't think you can blame the court on this one. We often complain about activist judges enforcing their opinions, and here they appear to be enforcing the letter of the law.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't the fault of the court that the state legislature crafted a poorly worded law. The answer to this is not to blame the judges, but to amend the law to fix the deficient wording.
Anon - of course it was over the top. Thanks for noticing! They say that exaggeration is the base of all comedy, and that's what I'm going after.
ReplyDeleteAnd Divemedic, I think your point is what the judges actually said. It was along the line of, "we hate to rule this way, but that's what the law says". My fear is that it's "please don't eat the daisies". Do laws have to be that specific, that it's illegal to photograph someone "completely or partially naked" but photographing under someone's clothes, and we're all naked under enough clothes, is fully legal? Isn't it close enough that the law meant to keep you from photographing someone naked without their permission? What's next? That the law outlawed film cameras but digital cameras are fine? Isn't that too fine a distinction?
Graybeard-
ReplyDeleteThis is what we get when long standing cultural mores are discarded- image this in 1900? or even 1965? someone would have had "their lights punched out". And that would have been the end of it- no assault charges filed, no civil suit, just a well corrected jerk.
Now the culture is gone, and every little things becomes an event for the courts.
Raven - exactly the way it would have been in 1900 Boston, and the way it often still is in small towns around America, although even they sometimes fall into the trap of letting the lawyers decide everything.
ReplyDeleteIn their infinite wisdom the State legislature (knee-jerk) passed misdemeanor legislation prohibiting such behavior (in light of the court's decision)
ReplyDeleteNow, women and girls are SAFE, because we all know passing laws solves the problem!
gfa
I wonder how this "no expectation of privacy while in public" thing will play into the hands of State surveillance? Nice precedent to have up your sleeve when you want to monitor other things besides panties.
ReplyDelete