Mass. Legislature Strikes Back: Upskirt Photos Now Officially a Misdemeanor 256
Just a day after a Massachusetts court said that current state law didn't specifically address "upskirt" snapshots (and so left taking them legal in itself, however annoying or invasive), an alert Massachusetts legislature has crafted and passed a bill to fix the glitch, and gotten it signed by the governor as well. As reported by the BBC, "The bill states that anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent
should face a misdemeanor charge. The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18." The New York Daily News points out this bill became a law without so much as a public hearing.
no surprise (Score:2, Offtopic)
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oprah is posting on slashdot?
Vageejay.
The only other time I have ever heard that word was when flipping through the channels on afternoon and Oprah was on talking about someone's Vageejay.
Sadly, just when I thought it might be a new Howard Stern type format for her show, I was wrong. Fortunately, she was taken off the air after being arrested at the airport. I guess someone lifted up her skirt and they found 150 pounds of crack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
You'd be mistaken [sun-sentinel.com]
Re:no surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I got four letters for you:J-U-R-Y. A panel of reasonable people will be able to interpret the meaning of the upskirt law, and be able to differentiate between pervs on the subway and accidental photo bombs the beach. That's the whole point of juries and why they are such an important part of the justice system. No need to be a slippery-slope absolutist.
Re:no surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to cases of moral, juries are worse than worthless. No one will stand up defending the rights of a potential sexual predator, even if probably innocent. Whether there's actual guilt or not, the jurors are under a tremendous social pressure to not appear to defend child pornography.
I am fairly certain that lawyers strongly recommend that defendants should do pretty much anything to avoid a jury trial, even if innocent. Because they will be found guilty.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Believe it or not, juries sometimes actually DO the right thing, even when sexual predators are involved.
WARNING: Anecdotal evidence follows:
About 15 years ago, I was the jury foreman on a particularly disgusting case... the guy was accused of doing his daughters. We were only able to convict him of one count: "Contributing to the delinquency", because we all agreed that he showed his daughters porn.
We hung on 4 other charges, oddly enough with 4 different splits. On one of the charges, I was one of tho
Re: (Score:2)
because we all agreed that he showed his daughters porn.
So?
Re: (Score:2)
Please do NOT come out of your parent's basement.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it would depend on the reason for showing it. I think parents should show and explain porn to their children before they inevitably get hold of it with no-one to explain. I'd rather them know that they're not to expect the monster penises they see in porn, and nor do most women really want said monster penises jammed up their rectum, and that it's perfectly fine to not act like the women in porn.
But showing porn to children in order to turn them or yourself on seems wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's great. Take a photo of a toddler just as she yanks her dress over her head and you're a felon. "AHHHH!! DELETE!! DELETE!!!"
Re:no surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, it'll just cost you $10,000 for a lawyer.
Read this (Score:5, Informative)
You Commit Three Felonies a Day [wsj.com].
If I look closely at you and your life, I will find something to incriminate you.
I have NO doubt what-so-ever.
So, about this being a "slippery-slope absolutist"?
Re:no surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
If only you could benefit from that before you spend your life savings on a lawyer (non-refundable), get fired, and have your name dragged through the media.
That and if judges would stop trying to weed out jurors that believe in nullification.
At one time, prosecutors usually did a decent job of not prosecuting the obviously innocent (or perhaps we just didn't hear of their misconduct as much), but these days they seem to have little care for guilt or innocence as long as they get their conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes more than four letters to answer you, but I wouldn't want my life to be in the hands of the juries on some of those day care sex abuse cases. And I wouldn't want to spend my life savings on legal fees. Would you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I got some letters for you, too: Voir dire. This is the process wherein lawyers weed out all your peers in favor of compliant idiots. That's not what it's supposed to do, of course, but that's how it's used. It's then almost always followed by admonishment by the judge to the effect that the jury has to apply the law as written, with nothing at all about the jury's actual duty to evaluate the law -- in fact, if that's brought up, likely you'll have a mistrial.
If you go to
Re: (Score:2)
A jury in principle can ensure right from wrong. But the reality is that no one would ever consider what a jury might do in the months leading up to your trial when the prosecutor and the mom with a bug up her butt drags your name through the press as the perv and pedophile this law would claim you are.
So yes, a jury should be a save, but the cost of that save could be impassible. Imagine if you were a school teacher who took a pic of his girlfriend at the beech, you job would be almost lost and you would h
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US jurors can acquit for any reason and aren't required to say what it was. Usually they rule on findings of fact, but that is not a requirement as far as I know. There are a number of organizations proselytizing what they believe are the full "rights" of a jury, for instance, the fully informed jury association [fija.org].
This is often derided by those who fear that racist jurors will acquit criminals whose victims are a discriminated against group and praised by those who fear that the the overwhelming body of existing law can be used against pretty much anyone - it's impossible t know the entirety of the law and so its impossible to avoid ever breaking it.
At the moment my fear of tyranny outweighs my fear of racists, though. I don't know if that will always be the case or if that historically would have been a poor assessment generally, but I think we need to think long and hard about ameliorating the potential issues of wrongful acquittals in other ways before risking an increase of wrongful convictions.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US jurors can acquit for any reason and aren't required to say what it was.
Yes, but I hear if you utter the words "jury nullification" during selection, you won't make it into the jury. Might actually be a good strategy if you want out.
Apparently you might even be accused of jury tampering for spreading the word http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you might even be accused of jury tampering for spreading the word http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02 [nytimes.com]...
I'd recommend you to include a link [nytimes.com] that explains why that particular case was dismissed (spoiler: the judge basically said: this is free speech).
Re: (Score:3)
The last time I was in voir dire, the judge asked us to swear under oath that we would judge only the facts and not the law. When I indicated that I could not swear to that, I was excused from the jury.
Re: (Score:2)
Racists can also acquit criminals who are members of their own racial group. See OJ Simpson for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all we know for sure what that someone killed the woman that OJ threatened to kill wearing OJ's shoes with OJ's hair with OJ's knife, and then OJ tried to flee while disguised. But other than that, yeah, not much evidence.
The other thing we know is that America is truly the land of equality where a rich black man can get away with murder just like a rich white man.
Re: (Score:2)
And that wasn't enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
And yet a guy in Texas was recently executed on nothing more than the testimony of a couple of people simply because the governor wanted to be president and saw an opportunity to prove he was "tough on crime". Of course he was nowhere near as rich and famous as OJ. With such inconsistent outcomes I have no idea why anyone in their right mind would support capital punishment
Re: (Score:2)
Well, lets not forget the glove that didn't fit.
I mean why would someone have a pair of gloves that didn't fit, spend the time and effort to put them on, then go kill someone and lose a glove in order for the cops to find and claim they were yours.
Actually, I know why but on a jury cooped up in a hotel who didn't have access to the internet, hindsight of every arm chair quarterback picking over the case with information not introduced in court, and all, it simply didn't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say, reading some of the transcript destroyed any faith I ever had in the FBI or it's crime lab forever. The police revealed themselves to be little better than the criminals they pursue.
I have no idea to this day if Simpson did it or not, so I must give him the benefit of the doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Racists is only part of it, what with for example a misogynist who think that the drunk woman in a short skirt was "asking for" getting raped, of course he won't say it outright but that's why he won't convict. Particularly in cases with real victims I don't think it's fair to let one man rewrite the law, it makes it arbitrary and unfair for everyone. Why have a democracy and Congress and courts if any yokel on the jury can say "Meh, I don't like it" and acquit? That's not the rule of law anymore, it's some
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that as long as there are juries, there can be nullification. The only exception is if the jury is just for show and knows it can get in trouble if it doesn't find the way the judge clearly wants it to.
Re: (Score:2)
Why have a democracy and Congress and courts if any yokel on the jury can say "Meh, I don't like it" and acquit?
The system is organized so that you are judged by a jury of your peers who are representative of the views / opinions local to your region. While the "yokel" problem you referenced above has in fact occurred, the original idea is that the people will have the final say about weather or not they will suffer an unjust law to be executed.
BTW, it takes a whole jury of yokels to agree to get an acquittal. The most one can do is a hung jury.
P.S. Yes, I know it doesn't always work this way. Judges have been fight
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is often derided by those who fear that racist jurors will acquit criminals whose victims are a discriminated against group and praised by those who fear that the the overwhelming body of existing law can be used against pretty much anyone.
You don't have to look very far into our past to see how jury nullification really works.
Re: (Score:3)
Intent (Score:3)
Law doesn't say it has to be hidden or clandestine...the jury exists only to determine guilt based on the law.
Maybe you should read the actual law before pre-empting what the judge might say, it clearly includes the words "intent", "secrecy" and "privacy" in the following excerpt - "[Thou shall not photograph people's wobbly bits] 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".
So the prosecutor needs a bit more than just the video, he has to demonstrate the defendant inten
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here, you should RTFL:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section105
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person 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, shall be pun
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. Is it obviously true that I have a right to secretly videotape people "just to be safe", just because they're in my house and I have (or think I have) a good reason?
Re: (Score:2)
There is the letter of the law, then there is the spirit of the law. In a properly governed society, the latter is the norm, and in your fictional-but-plausible scenario, the cop who you ended up talking to would realize that it was accidental and innocent, and nothing more would come of it.
So far a
Re: (Score:2)
I've been pulled over for DWB (driving while black), though I'm white. The law allows any cop to pull over anyone at any time "I thought your inspection sticker was expired" (though it was 2 months into a 12 month period). He "hides" on a cross street, and pulls over anyone that doesn't "fit in". In the day, that's black people. At night, that's someone in a car that doesn't fit in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about you look at the actual law [malegislature.gov];
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,
Your scenario does not fit on 3 points:
with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity
Unless you hide your camera, you are in the clear.
under or around the person’s clothing
A bare chest has no clothing for the photograph to be under or around.
a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public
A bare chest is obviously visible to the public
Didn't you get the memo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would this even be an issue? When you shoot video, do you irresponsibly just upload it to the Internet for public viewing, immediately, without so much as previewing what you filmed first?
I've always assumed that 80% of the work of recording video is the editing you do AFTER you're captured the initial footage!
You haven't watched You Tube much, have you?
Re: (Score:3)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graven [reference.com]
Age difference (Score:3)
Age difference should matter when you're talking about people under 18. A sixteen-year-old who does this to another 16-year-old should be guilty of no more than a misdemeanor if an adult would be guilty of no more than a misdemeanor for the same behavior with another adult.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I'd agree, except this specifies non-consensual, and there's a societal desire to not produce child porn for the consumption of anyone, child, teen, or adult.
A 16-year old agreeing to such is apparently legal per this law.
Similarly, if it were permissible for children to photograph any age, then adults would simply coerce children to do the dirty work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A 16yo doing this shouldn't be tried as an adult to begin with.
wow (Score:3, Funny)
No exceptions for law enforcement or security? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"(e) This section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer’s authority under applicable law, or by an order or warrant issued by a court."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you are referring to, then, is called "implied consent", and is legally quite distinguishable from consent, which does require explicit permission, and it's extremely different from "informed consent", which goes at least one step further than than that by requiring that such consent is only applicable when the consequences of consent have been explicitly clarified beforehand. Informed consent, in this case, would be not only knowing about the photographer and the camera, and agreeing to have such pic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if you renounce your citizenship, you're required to have citizenship somewhere else first. At which point, your new-found patron nation is required to defend you.
Re: (Score:2)
And there isn't much to defend when the US rejects "routine" visa applications solely to punish ex-citizens as a matter of punitive policy, as is their right, even if evil. Yes, the US will block you from going home for your parent's funeral if you renounced. Or visiting new grand children.
Re: (Score:2)
Has this been a large problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the prior news story about a guy getting off for upskirt photos, this law seems like a solution looking for a problem. Has upskirt photography been such a large problem in Massachusetts that a law was required?
I would have thought basic social pressures and shaming (lets admit - people doing this *are* particularly creepy) would do a better job at limiting the number of offenders, and the rest would do it anyways.
With a law on the books, particularly one with the possibility for felony charges, I wonder how many times we are going to read about misapplication of the law. Do you technically run afoul of the law anytime you take a photo where a woman in a skirt is elevated from your current location, such as a place with an elevated walkway? Do you risk arrest for taking a picture in a location with an escalator or glass-walled elevator like many shopping malls? even if you are close to neither one?
Re: (Score:2)
Like Marilyn Monroe walking over a subway grate.
Pervs click here http://ibnlive.in.com/news/mar... [in.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Read the whole law [malegislature.gov] before drawing conclusions.
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,
Most people take innocent photographs while holding their cameras near eye level where the camera is visible to everyone around. Your scenario fails the " with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity" clause. You would also have to get photos of her "sexual or other intimate parts [not]visible to the public". Then there is the most important point;
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils,
If the photograph is from a distance and/or not centered on the subject it would be simple to show that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the prior news story about a guy getting off for upskirt photos, this law seems like a solution looking for a problem. Has upskirt photography been such a large problem in Massachusetts that a law was required?
In short, yes, it's been a problem in general for a while, enough so that camera phones are have been required for about 5 years by federal law (the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act) to make a noise when they take a picture to make it harder to sneak an up skirt photo on the subway.
Do you technically run afoul of the law anytime you take a photo where a woman in a skirt is elevated from your current location, such as a place with an elevated walkway? Do you risk arrest for taking a picture in a location with an escalator or glass-walled elevator like many shopping malls? even if you are close to neither one?
Assuming you mean somebody accidentally captured an up skirt photo in the frame, then no. Not only would there be no criminal intent in that case, but according to TFA "The legislation says anyone who tries to photograph another
Re:Has this been a large problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
i could think of quite a bit of problems that a 'couple of right hooks' would solve
Now that i think about it, whats the point of any law anyways? it should all be social justice, mob rule thats what i say, fuck the goverment. People in general should be allowed to just decide at any given moment what is a fair punishment and if somone is guilty or not, facts, evidence, fair trail...all that is just pointless when anyone can just look at a moment in a situation and just know what to do. couple of right hooks, maybe blow his brains out, or burn him...all these things can just be decided by whoever is around at the moment of emotional impulse
Ya...i totally like your idea
Re: (Score:2)
It's a progressive state, so more government regulation is always better.
Well, we do not require transvaginal ultrasounds for women who want to get abortions.
The difference between a progressive state and a conservative state isn't regulation. It's *what* is regulated.
this is what the government is for (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hence you are fucked.
TSA Beware (Score:4, Interesting)
Any airports or ports in Mass?
If so TSA beware, imaging my junk without my express permission is now a felony in Massachusetts.
You know this is a bad law (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure I agree with that .... (Score:3)
If a law is made this quickly, it could ALSO mean it just seems like such a common sense thing to the people involved, there's really nothing to argue about.
Personally, I think I'd rather have legislation made this way (flawed though it may be) than people passing multiple hundred page long bills that NOBODY could read through and fully understand before they're voted on.
Simple, quickly passed legislation can also be easily understood by juries and amended, as needed. The massive stuff with hundreds of hidd
Re: (Score:3)
It could but it usually doesn't.
What you see is a lot of judges writing, "This law is clearly unfair and was not intended to apply in this situation, but much as I hate to, I'm forced to follow the law, and sentence you to ten years in jail."
A law making it illegal to photograph the "intimate parts" of women and children in public. What could go wrong? http://www.shutterstock.com/pi... [shutterstock.com]
Actually, in Massachusetts and a few other states, there were laws requiring photo processors to turn photos over to the pol
Re: (Score:2)
Yes brilliant. The prosecution was thrown out by the courts because the law was badly written, so they pass another law without hearings, and without giving lawyers a chance to look over it and figure out how to get it right this time.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea how many lawyers looked at the law. It could have been worked on for years starting at the time the appeal was files. Do you really think that people who write laws only show them to lawyers at public hearings? Most laws are written by lawyers. The legislators just pass them. Sure some laws have loopholes but laws are not written in a vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
A democracy works in public.
If you're going to pass a law that will give prosecutors the power to put people in jail and mess up their lives, you should have public hearings where you tell everybody what you're going to do and let them bring up any objections or improvements that you may not have thought of. And in this law there are many.
A democracy doesn't work in secret.
Re: (Score:2)
A democracy doesn't work in secret.
I don't see how a public vote is considered secret. I vote in people to make day to day decisions that I would make. Voting for a bill that clarifies this kind of privacy violation is exactly why I vote for my representative. I do not need to have input on every law made. I vote for people who think like me. If they deviate too far I vote for someone else next time.
And in this law there are many.
Have you actually read the law [malegislature.gov] or just the summary? Do you have improvements? If so, what are they? I have read the law and it actually looks p
Re: (Score:2)
The initial arrest was in 2010 and the current ruling was an appeal. It is quite possible the this law has been in the works for a couple of years, starting at when the case was appealed. It is quite possible that the lawmakers were waiting to see if the current law was sufficient before introducing changes. Why pass a law that is already covered under current law?
Such clear wording! (Score:2)
"the sexual or other intimate parts"
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, leaves the determination of legality up to the subject, rather than the overt act: wear panties, no crime; go bare, gotcha'!
Re: (Score:2)
also the length of the skirt in question.
and if the wind blows the skirt up while you are taking a picture already.
Or the lady in question falls down and exposes themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a term that they define earlier in the law [malegislature.gov], and they're quite clear:
"Sexual or other intimate parts", human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by clothing or undergarments.
Well, maybe not "quite clear" but it's not like "sexual or other intimate parts" is the phrase that determines the meaning of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
So the media report introduced inaccuracies in their summarisation. Nothing new there. I should have seen that one.
Still poor though, as the 'covered by clothing' part, combined with modern teenage fashions, means a lot of young women are now going around in such a manner that any picture of them is now one stop short of child porn.
Re: (Score:2)
indecent photographs (Score:2)
i hope they defined indecent or they are still in the same boat
Without a public hearing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The teachers are going to have to work until 67, just like the rest of us? No wonder their union is upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to modern politics. Politicians do whatever they want and don;t need to consult the public at all.
Meh, I'm not sure that really applies in this case. The law that was passed [malegislature.gov] is basically a patch. And, like so many laws, I mean that quite literally: it's a list of insertions and deletions into the existing legal code.
Basically the Supreme Judicial Court said that a certain activity that was clearly intended to fall under the law didn't, because of the way the law was written. So the legislature fixed the wording of the law.
All the public debate had already happened, this was just a "bug fix," so to speak
CBS had a better headlinne (Score:4, Funny)
Massachusetts lawmakers crack down on "upskirt" photos
That's Fark quality.
They must have, right? (Score:2)
"Before I vote on this here law," drawled the Boston polit...sorry hold on.
"Before I vote on this heah law," Kennedied the Boston politician, "I'm goin-guh to need to see some of these so-called 'up her skirt' photo-garaffs to make shua they are a vile as suggested. Good. Ok thank you. I will be busy studying them at home. Hold my calls."
The 'State', of course, is excluded. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why did such laws not originally exist? The question is essential, the answer very disturbing.
Under the PRINCIPLE of English law, which is mostly the basis of Law in lands derived from England, like the USA, laws apply equally to citizens and 'agents' of the State, like police. The reason laws against covert photography were missing was because, until very recently, such laws would also apply to people working for the State, and governments did NOT want their own people limited by such laws.
Things have changed. Since the 1980s, the sheeple have been subject to non-stop propaganda attacks that define a new "you and them" understanding, where the State is understood to be the MASTER of the sheeple, not its servant. When enough sheeple took it for granted that the State acted as if it were "above the Law of Man", those in power could exploit this new mindset to the max.
Now, the vast majority of sheeple see no issue with a law that bans THEM from all kinds of acts that, if done by an employee of the State, will attract no penalty.
So, your school can provide laptops to your children to take home, SPECIFICALLY for the covert purpose of video recording your children in their own bedrooms at all times, and when this program is revealed, the highest courts of the USA declare such acts completely legal. And not legal in the sense that someone had 'forgotten' to create a law describing such as a crime. NO- legal in the sense that the State, and those that the State employs, are above the Laws that control you, the sheeple.
Look had broadly the new, UNCONSTITUTIONAL (because the new law involved no public consultation) law is defined. It is a classic 'catch all' that allows ANYONE engaged in public photography to be arrested on suspicion. YOU wanted a law punishing pervs who were obviously sticking a camera up a woman's skirt. What you got is a law that fires first, and asks questions later.
Take a photo of a child (which is scarily defined as even a 17-year old) in a swimsuit in a public venue, and you've broken this law. You MIGHT win in court, but the act of taking such a photo is certainly grounds for arrest.
Using a camera to take a photograph of a full dressed women without her consent is now also grounds for arrest. WHY? Because your INTENT may be infringing- you may have removed the IR filter (or be using a camera sensitive to IR), so that IR transparent clothing 'vanishes' on the recorded image, revealing the 'intimate parts' that make your act of photography a crime under this new law. Neither the woman nor the arresting officer can prove you are NOT doing this by looking at your camera. And unlike court, a police person is allowed to follow a "guilty until proven innocent" approach if they have any reasonable grounds to suspect guilt.
Why would Massachusetts want such an over-reaching and catch-all version of this law? Do I REALLY have to ask? They stomp all over your rights, in the name of public decency, while codifying their ability to do the very thing this new law is supposed to prevent. Will Bill Gates NSA spy platform, the Xbox One, suddenly become illegal in children's bedrooms in this state? Hahahahahahaha. Most of you sheeple are so thick, you fall over yourselves to praise Gates for helping create a real-life '1984' world.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I think you should spend more time working on your own website [timecube.com]
What about upskirt selfies? (Score:2)
I know, most of you can't do that, but would that be a misdemeanor?
The existing law had a bug. (Score:3)
It all seems reasonable to me. The existing law had a bug. Nobody ever intended for upskirt pictures to be legal. The judge did the right thing: reported the bug. The developers of laws did the right thing: they fixed the bug. Now the legal situation is better than it was.
Re:The existing law had a bug. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course... but the problem is that they implemented the patch on their production servers (signing it into law), without going through the normal testing procedures (public hearing, discussion in the legislature). Actually they did it without any such test at all.
Now what could possibly go wrong?
Close Call (Score:2)
Public surveillance cameras now illegal (Score:3)
anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge.
Anyone who videotapes, OR.... ?
Step 1. Run naked across the field of view of the camera "accidentally"
Step 2. See the camera, call the police
Step 3. Press charges against property owner for violation of upskirt law
Step 4. Profit
The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18."
Double-score if you're a 17-year-old obnoxious young lady; now the fixed camera operator will become a felon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If I take a picture, and a woman's bikini covered boobs happen to be in it, am I guilty?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Are lips considered "sexual parts"? Are ears? Remember, a woman's body is an entire sexual playground.
Such definitions are typically covered in statute some place or another. Unfortunately you have to read the whole bill and associated references to figure it out. I'm certainly not going to do that for you, but you are welcome to amuse yourself.
Re: (Score:2)