Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal 519
cold fjord writes with this CNN report: "Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing — a practice known as "upskirting" — prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law. The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude."
Given that interpretation of what the law says... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't really say the ruling is wrong or bad. Instead, and quoting from TFA, "If the statute as written doesn't protect that privacy, then I'm urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does."
Now, question to slashdotters who are not a lawyer but know the law better than me: wouldn't there be any other way the victims would be able to convict the photographer? Couldn't they claim that amounted to harassment or something? Or... well... anything?
Rule of Law (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good thing for anybody who believes in the rule of law. Laws should be written to clearly put those governed on notice as to what behavior is prohibited. Pervy or not, if the photographer was within the actual letter of the law, he shouldn't be be held criminally liable for doing something which was not prohibited. The solution is not to "interpret" the law to extend beyond its text; the solution is to fix the bad law.
If laws can be "interpreted" to go beyond their plain meanings, then it becomes difficult for those subject to them to figure out what is prohibited. Not only is it patently unfair to hold someone accountable for an action that wasn't listed as prohibited, there is a strong constitutional precedent for holding it "void for vagueness." See, e.g., Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926):
[T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
Re:Now that's news for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
Too late, Mass Legislation has already passed the law banning upskirting. It's heading to the governor's desk. If not today, by tomorrow, it'll be signed and put into effect.
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, so i'll get a 6" round pipe, 1 foot long, and attach it to my zipper, sticking straight out (maybe a slightly upward angle). I'll let my junk rest in the pipe. As long as you don't look down the pipe, you won't see my junk.
This is the equivilent of a skirt, just at a little different angle. (most of the time, but not always).
Also, if I hold my camera 2.5 feet off the floor, looking up, I can see up a gals skirt. That is also the same viewing angle that a two year old boy has. A woman can't go around corrupting minors and at the same time get all uppity about her fashion statement and privacy. A woman who wants the privacy needs to cover it up, and not just from a few angles. You can't have iot both ways.
Of course, my preference is, ...uncovered.
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because it isn't actually their job to do that. They arrogated that power to themselves.
The actual power given to them by the constitution is the usual judicial power. Or in other words: guilty, not guilty, adjudication withheld, case dismissed, etc. They have original jurisdiction in cases that involve the states, ambassadors and so forth. Nowhere does the constitution say or imply they can declare a law unconstitutional. That is done by the constitution itself. That's the whole damned point of it.
The consequence of allowing these judges to determine constitutionality has been (just to mention a few) inversion of the commerce clause, violations of almost the entire bill of rights, usurpation of states rights by the feds, and more.
The constitution is written in plain English. If it proves insufficient to the cause, it can be amended. The very first amendment it ought to have is the holding of legislators accountable when they make laws that the constitution rules out. In the vast majority of cases, that's bloody obvious. For instance, "shall make no law" is crystal clear. So what does congress do? They make laws in that very area anyway. And the justices? They uphold these laws. It's no wonder the legal system is such a wreck. They aren't traitors; they're just criminals.
It shouldn't be illegal even if they were nude (Score:2, Interesting)
These clothes are chosen because they are sexy. They are sexy BECAUSE in certain moments and with certain movements you can see down the blouse and up the skirt and everyone knows it so choosing to wear these clothes is choosing to let random strangers catch a glimpse. People are allowed to photograph you in public, wearing whatever you've chosen to wear and doing whatever you've chosen to do in public.
If you don't want someone to see down your blouse, don't wear a blouse people can see down. If you don't want someone to see up your skirt, wear a long skirt or don't wear a skirt. Granted people seeing this in person is something you can change tomorrow by not wearing these things and the photos you can't change your mind on. But we shouldn't be passing laws for no other purpose than to allow people to have fewer consequences when they make immodest wardrobe choices.
A law that blanket prevented photographing and recording people in public without explicit consent. That would be something I could get behind. Copyright being jointly shared on all images and video between the person making the photo/video and the people in them. That would be something I could get behind. Another law trying to define when you are and aren't entitled to privacy, spelling out certain circumstances and conditions. No thanks. The laws protecting individuals and preserving their personal rights should be broad, strongly worded, and strongly protected in our courts. It's the exceptions that should be narrow and specific.
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure it's actually still illegal. What it's not, according to the actual case, is on the wrong side of the "anti-peeping tom" law. I'm guessing the prosecutor fucked up, tried to go for a charge with a bigger sentence, and couldn't make it stick.
Re:Does not make sense (Score:4, Interesting)
The nudity laws in Texas include a "intent to shock or disturb" clause, so nude beaches get a pass because the beachgoers aren't taking off their clothing with "illegal intent."
States around here have similar laws. In one state nearby it is completely legal for women to go topless anywhere men can go topless. Judge in a widely followed indecency case: "State law forbids the exposure of genitals. A woman's breasts are not genitals and so exposing them is not prohibited by law. Further, if it were, I would have no choice but to strike down the law as being unconstitutionally discriminatory."
In another nearby state, nudity is allowed unless, as in Texas, it is intended to "shock or disturb". Thus, technically it is perfectly legal to go downtown naked, as long as you don't try to enter stores that require shirts and shoes. And if you did, that would be a violation of trespassing laws, not "indecency" laws.
Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score:3, Interesting)
Next time you see some one doing an up-skirt don't look away, look right at the person and make it clear you see him (or her) and do not approve.
I have a friend who used to do shit like that. Not like super duper creepy, but opportunistically.
We were all out at a bar one time and he's walking back to the table, sees this girl in a short skirt facing away from with at a "good" angle.
He starts lining up the shot and his girlfriend goes up to the girl and says, "Excuse me, there's some pervert over there trying to take a picture of your underwear".
The girl looks around sees him calls him a pervert and we all bust out laughing.
Don't fuck with Lisa. They've been married a long time now ;-)
Re:Marbury v. Madison (1803) (Score:4, Interesting)
You read 5 words and even got them wrong. Let's actually go through how clear it really is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Define: Religion. Is Scientology a religion or a cult?
Define: Exercise. Are we talking about calm prayer or does your religion require you to lock down a city and hold people hostage?
Define: Freedom of speech. Is lying to congress freedom of speech?
Define: Press. Is anyone potentially press like bloggers or just old news establishments?
Define: Peaceably. At what point do you say enough is enough? Are people allowed to permanently squat in a public park?
Define: Grievances. This is perhaps the most open of the lot.
This is just one bloody sentence and yet has 6 potential points which are anything from clear without an exact definition. I'm also no lawyer, I'm sure a trained sleezebag could find even more problems with that sentence.