Upskirt Pics on Subway Fair Game, Says Mass. Supreme Court

[mota bhai 2,675]

A case in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court points up just how confusing the idea of how far our expectations of privacy extend is. A man named Michael Robertson had been charged in 2010 with taking “up-skirt” pictures of women on the MBTA subway system. But the court ruled today in favor of his appeal that the so-called “Peeping Tom” law under which he was charged did not actually apply in this case, reversing the ruling of a lower court.

The law says it is illegal to photograph, videotape or electronically surveil someone “who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person’s knowledge and consent…”

The state of being “partially nude”, in case you were wondering, also has a legal definition, meaning “the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola.”

In other words, pictures of your panties are fair game ladies.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/upskirt-panty-pics-on-subway-fair-game-says-mass-supreme-court/

[Sousuke 1,214]

A case in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court points up just how confusing the idea of how far our expectations of privacy extend is. A man named Michael Robertson had been charged in 2010 with taking “up-skirt” pictures of women on the MBTA subway system. But the court ruled today in favor of his appeal that the so-called “Peeping Tom” law under which he was charged did not actually apply in this case, reversing the ruling of a lower court.

The law says it is illegal to photograph, videotape or electronically surveil someone “who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person’s knowledge and consent…”

The state of being “partially nude”, in case you were wondering, also has a legal definition, meaning “the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola.”

In other words, pictures of your panties are fair game ladies.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/upskirt-panty-pics-on-subway-fair-game-says-mass-supreme-court/

But are the photos "suggestive"?

[deleted-05292014 331]

/giggity

[mota bhai 2,675]

/giggity

All jokes aside, I like this ruling. It makes a lot of sense. How is upskirt photography any different than taking photographs of passengers as they walk by? In both cases, you're photographing something they have chosen to cover with clothing and it is a picture of that clothing that you capture on film.

If women don't want to be upskirt photographed, they can always wear burkhas. This isn't France, burkhas are still legal.

[Operator 1,925]

All women, everywhere, no matter what they are doing, are fair game for the sexualized gaze of men.

One word-Pants.

[mota bhai 2,675]

And what happens when the armpit fetish catches on? Will it become illegal to photograph women's armpits as they do stretching exercises in the park? End the insanity.

[Operator 1,925]

I don't know how my GoPro ended up in the women's port-O-potty at the Phish concert. Is that a problem?

[mota bhai 2,675]

If feminazis controlled the world, it would be.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Take your choice: the guy with a camera in his bag or shoe, or the NSA. Which one is more legit?

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

All women, everywhere, no matter what they are doing, are fair game for the sexualized gaze of men.

One word-Pants.

You think we don't know that this is the way the world works? Even when we're the ones wearing the literal and figurative pants.

We know well enough just from this site that existing as a human female is suggestive.

[mota bhai 2,675]

You think we don't know that this is the way the world works? Even when we're the ones wearing the literal and figurative pants.

We know well enough just from this site that existing as a human female is suggestive.

Women LOVE it.

[Operator 1,925]

Women LOVE it.

And the smart ones work it like a plate of eggs.

[mota bhai 2,675]

And the smart ones work it like a plate of eggs.

#truth

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Women LOVE it.

I see you know ladies very well. There's nothing I enjoy more than being objectified and valued only for my decorative value. Expensive education and professional achievements be damned! It's these 34Ds that are my defining characteristic, and alas, at my age they are no longer so pert. I'll be put out to pasture soon. Better schedule my short and practical haircut now, and pick up a pair of mom jeans.

[mota bhai 2,675]

I see you know ladies very well. There's nothing I enjoy more than being objectified and valued only for my decorative value. Expensive education and professional achievements be damned! It's these 34Ds that are my defining characteristic, and alas, at my age they are no longer so pert. I'll be put out to pasture soon. Better schedule my short and practical haircut now, and pick up a pair of mom jeans.

Yes.