Up-Skirts OKFollow

I think there's some grayness there. We had a thread on this a while back yes? Someone snapped a picture from an overpass of someone exercising topless or something in their house?

It's all a blur honestly.

It was a man who video taped a woman ************ in her room from a subway platform. Then the guy got in trouble. I think it was Elinda who mentioned that if tables were turned, and the guy was ************ in his room exposed to the public, that the guy would probably have been in trouble rather than the woman who happened to catch it. I agreed, and think I posted a news article where it happened in Canada, man got in trouble for indecent exposure for ************ in his living room, and the neighbors saw him.

Huh, I was right for once. That was fast.

Linky.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 3:35pm by someproteinguy

Except the NSA, of course.

Because walking around in your underwear isn't usually a violation of the law? Kinda for the reason Smash alluded to. How do you legally make a distinction between a bikini and a bra and panties? If the answer is about what the woman choose to wear/expose, that's a valid point if the guy is taking pictures of her in a place she'd expect to have privacy, but a subway isn't. And if the answer is that she was "covered", that's not really true. If someone is able to take a picture of you, without physically violating your personal space, and that picture has an image of your panties, your panties were not covered. It's not like the light that reached the camera moved around corners to bring an image of your panties to the lens. There had to be a direct line of sight between the two. In a public space.

How do you differentiate this from the case of a woman lifting up her skirt? You can't. Not legally. Sure, we can assume she didn't intend to sit in such a way that if someone placed a camera down by the floor at just the right angle, it would have a direct line of sight to her panties, but at the end of the day, she did sit in such a way. Doesn't change that the guys a creeper for taking the picture, but trying to pass a law that attempts to determine the motivation of the person taking the picture and the person in the picture in order to differentiate between a legal picture of the fabric covering a woman's ****** and an illegal one is nearly impossible. And attempting to do so will create more problems than it fixes.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 4:37pm by gbaji

They did just pass a law so it seems sort of moot.

Do the paparazzi have a union? Because I can see them pressuring the judge in this case not to set a precedent that would make pictures of Lindsay Lohan getting out of her limo a felony.

Yeah that sounds right. Something like that.

That's an oxymoron, laws need to be interpreted literally by the courts, or we feed the judicial activism trolls (it's only when it's the other guys law that's getting loosely interpreted that it becomes judicial activism, by the way).


That's a conclusion, and a nice thing to protect against.


That's the test. A public place that's been designated as private (public restroom) is a private place for this consideration. I didn't word that really well, but I think I made my point.

I'll just add that the story in the OP is creepy, and if it was my daughter and I was on the subway and saw it happening, I'd probably try and pop the guy (I'm getting too old to guarantee I'd actually land a punch). But trying to legislate this stuff would be madness.

You'll just be exercising your religious freedom.

I take it you're joking, since the court said it did not violate state law. And I live in New York so I don't know how it would be aggravated assault, since there is no aggravating circumstance. Especially considering I said I didn't think I'd land the punch. But, you were joking, right?

It's linked upthread. The Massachusetts state legislature passed a law almost immediately following the court ruling. It was waiting now for the governor to sign it.

Oh, thank goodness. I was very concerned that we wouldn't pass a new law based on an emotional response to the current news cycle. What a relief!

This is how legislation should be written.

Solution: Mirrored underpants.

Nexa