WHATTTTT? Mass. Court: Subway 'Upskirt' Photos Not Illegal

[Unkotare]

There are laws against this kind of thing in Japan, and enforcing the law is not worse than the crime itself.

 

[R.D.]

In NY it's legal to take pictures of strangers in their own homes.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Coming next: pedophilia.

 

[racewright]

There are laws against this kind of thing in Japan, and enforcing the law is not worse than the crime itself.

Then move to Japan,,and If you do have sex with women make sure you get a Notarized letter on your letter head giving her consent.

 

[Unkotare]

There are laws against this kind of thing in Japan, and enforcing the law is not worse than the crime itself.

Then move to Japan,...

What the hell are you talking about, low-life?

 

[rightwinger]

a baker that puts his goods in the window can't get mad when someone takes a pic and puts it on the web.


teach your daughters there's creeps out there and teach them to dress properly.

I find it odd that if it were a man exposing his genitals like that, it is the man who would be arrested

 

[1751_Texan]

The law was for the problem of "peeping toms". A new law will be passed that adresses this type of activity...thats all. Blaming the courts is ridiculous.

If there is a law forbiding for anyone to hit your left hand with a hammer...you cant prosecute someone for hitting your right hand with a hammer.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Coming next: pedophilia.

Yay non-sequitur of the day landed early! Congrats.

 

[racewright]

There are laws against this kind of thing in Japan, and enforcing the law is not worse than the crime itself.

Then move to Japan,...

What the hell are you talking about, low-life?

Whats the matter afro giving you a headache

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Coming next: pedophilia.

Yay non-sequitur of the day landed early! Congrats.

No, it'll come in the form of consensual between a child and adult. Perverted state.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The law was for the problem of "peeping toms". A new law will be passed that adresses this type of activity...thats all. Blaming the courts is ridiculous.

If there is a law forbiding for anyone to hit your left hand with a hammer...you cant prosecute someone for hitting your right hand with a hammer.

Yes you can. Assault.

 

[Unkotare]

Then move to Japan,...

What the hell are you talking about, low-life?

Whats the matter afro giving you a headache

Now you are making even less sense. Are you just typing words at random or are you trying to be a racist but are too much of a pussy to be direct about it? Either way you are way off base and making quite the ass of yourself.

 

[NoNukes]

Badlands in 5..4..3..2..

Why is that? Why would an insane ruling by a court , which allows a woman to be violated be moved to "the badlands"?

Nude or not, it is quite a violation to women.

 

[Unkotare]

Then move to Japan,...

What the hell are you talking about, low-life?

Whats the matter afro giving you a headache

Well pussy? Care to explain yourself, or are you too much of a craven fucking coward?

 

[martybegan]

Badlands in 5..4..3..2..

Why is that? Why would an insane ruling by a court , which allows a woman to be violated be moved to "the badlands"?

Nude or not, it is quite a violation to women.

But the law has to be rewritten to make it actually criminal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's so fucking wrong.

Totally wrong.

 

[BillyZane]

Badlands in 5..4..3..2..

Why is that? Why would an insane ruling by a court , which allows a woman to be violated be moved to "the badlands"?

^ more proof of how dumb some people are.

The court ruling doesn't allow women to be violated, the fact that the law is not applicable does. Change the law, duh

This court did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do , it ruled that the law as written was improperly applied in this case

The government can't just make up facts to support an arrest because people don't like what someone did.

 

[BillyZane]

Badlands in 5..4..3..2..

Why is that? Why would an insane ruling by a court , which allows a woman to be violated be moved to "the badlands"?

Nude or not, it is quite a violation to women.

Quite so, but that doesn't mean the law applies.

Change the law, don't misinterpret the current one.

 

[Desperado]

Mass. Court: Subway 'Upskirt' Photos Not Illegal
What do you expect in the Land of Ted Kennedy?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Badlands in 5..4..3..2..

Why is that? Why would an insane ruling by a court , which allows a woman to be violated be moved to "the badlands"?

^ more proof of how dumb some people are.

The court ruling doesn't allow women to be violated, the fact that the law is not applicable does. Change the law, duh

This court did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do , it ruled that the law as written was improperly applied in this case

The government can't just make up facts to support an arrest because people don't like what someone did.

Dumb, eh?

Robertson, the asshole argued that it was his constitutional right to take photos of these women’s genitals without their consent. The court ruled “that women have no expectation of privacy when in public”. And "A female passenger on an MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing...but if a clothed person is out in public and reveals areas under their clothing, whether inadvertently ( *having a camera shoved up your dress or skirt ) or otherwise, to plain view, she or he no longer has an expectation of privacy".


Here is the law as it is written now:

Section 105. (a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

“Electronically surveils” or “electronically surveilled”, to view, obtain or record a person’s visual image by the use or aid of a camera, cellular or other wireless communication device, computer, television or other electronic device.

“Partially nude”, the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola.

(b) 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 punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(c) Whoever willfully disseminates the visual image of another person who is nude or partially nude, with knowledge that such visual image was unlawfully obtained in violation of subsection (b) and without consent of the person so depicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or in the state prison for not more than 5 years or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(d) This section shall not apply to a merchant that electronically surveils a customer changing room, provided that signage warning customers of the merchant’s surveillance activity is conspicuously posted at all entrances and in the interior of any changing room electronically surveilled.

(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.

(f) A sheriff, deputy sheriff or police officer may arrest without a warrant, a person whom he has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

(g) A photograph, videotape or other recorded visual image, depicting a person who is nude or partially nude that is part of any court record arising from a prosecution under this section, shall not be open to public inspection and shall only be made available by court personnel to a law enforcement officer, prosecuting attorney, defendant’s attorney, defendant, or victim connected to such prosecution for inspection, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

(h) In a prosecution under this section, a justice of the superior court or district court may issue appropriate orders to restrain or prevent the unlawful dissemination of a person’s visual image in violation of this section.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section105


The justices decided a woman who may be in a skirt without underwear and only stockings or nothing at all, is not partially nude. So yeah, it allows women to be photographed against their will, thusly violating their rights. Women don't get onto trains and then proceed to spread their legs for the security cameras in the corners. The fact there was cameras on the trains is what allowed this idiotic ruling. The law above is clear as it stands. Instead the justices said it may inhibit 'artistic' and or journalistic rights". GMAB . The law was clear, his attorney took a small portion of that law above and twisted it to mean something else.