It's not a crime without a statute that defines it as a crime. You can't just prosecute somebody under the closest criminal statute:
Existing so-called Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas, the court said.
“A female passenger on a 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,” the court said in its ruling.
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
No perv-shaming.
They're here, they're pervs, get used to it!
I suppose if they did count as nude, accidentally flashing someone would be prosecutable as public indecency/exposure, right?
I think though you could probably get a law passed tout suite that tries to address this. I'm just not sure how to word it. We could call it the "no mirrors on the shoes" law.
♫ Well did it ever recur?
Well his lawyers demurred
And his fate is still unlearned...
He may spy forever 'neath the skirts of Boston
He's the man who never abjured ♫
Now days is popular among some folk to, uh, go 'commando'. That is no undergarments.
Others photo themselves in 'selfies' nude and send them to others like Weiner did.
Now as for upskirt photos, here in Texas if you photograph people without permission for 'sexual excitement' it is illegal. No boob shots, upskirts, behind shots, etc...
Maybe Massachusetts needs to look into a law like that. But that might ensnare a few Kennedys.
there was a time when catholic schoolgirls were not allowed to wear patent leather shoes because of possible up-skirt reflections.
Now wait a second, isn't there some kind of penumbra or emanation from the intent of the Peeping Tom law that can be used to safeguard women's rights to keep their underwear private in public places?
Isn't there some way that the 14th amendment can be stretched to cover this situation even though no one ever knew it covered that meaning until now?
Can't we consider it a tax paid by jail time or something and punish the perpetrator that way?
Because I thought that's how courts were supposed to decide things now.
What about a gay person in a same sex shower?
Why is there no law to protect those innocent victims of the gay persons gaze?
How does this work? If I take a photo of your shoe, and find that sexually exciting, that's my business. But if I take a photo of your underwear, even if I don't find it exciting, that's your business?
Put a Burqa on it.
The Massachusetts statute defines "partially nude" as "the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola."
That seems to cover it, but the problem was in the prohibited conduct: "whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude ..."
It's all in the definition of "is".
And, by the way, the Massachusetts statute contains an exception for store dressing rooms:
"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."
I have never seen such a sign here in Massachusetts, but perhaps I am not shopping in the right places.
now, he can run for office as a Democrat. his perversion will be a resume enhancement.
Just because I have pants on doesn't mean you're not taking a photo of my penis.
I am dealing with young females in my office having Cambridge guys along Mass Ave taking their pics on the street...like constantly.
I try to be empy but really am like girl congrats..someone wants to take your pic.
They are all concerned their face is going to be on a horse or pig getting fucked.
It all goes to show you that Boston is really the center of the universe.
What we say eventually goes national.
Hello? Health Care and Gay Marriage.
Suck on it Kansas.
tits.
Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1858 said that Boston was “the hub of the solar system.”
That is where we get our attitude and esteem from.
The rest of you pieces of shit from grossland deal with it.
It's pretty fab out here Titus and I think you know it. Darrell Issa is my Congressman. How cool is that?
Who is your Congresscritter, Titus?
So let me get this straight. A young woman goes streaking through the park wearing the clothes she was born in, and a bunch of guys photograph her. Then under Massachusetts law they're the perverts?
But a guy who surreptitiously shoots photographs under women's skirts in hopes of finding someone who's gone commando, he's perfectly legal?
Dickens was right; the law is an ass.
I disagree. If you could take a picture through a wall, you would have an expectation of privacy, and it would (I hope) be defined as illegal to do so without a warrant. There is some background with police doing infrared scans; I don't know how that was resolved.
Same with your crotch in a public place.
Or should you just keep it in your purse? Or as Wanda Sykes would suggest, enjoy the freedom that comes with leaving your detachable pussy at home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv5pjSRSLGQ
Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1858 said that Boston was “the hub of the solar system.”
Interestingly, no one says that now, outside of Boston. I found that amusing when I lived there and still do. Great college town, though.
Turns out, he was a subway musician.
♫ Please come to Boston for the springtime. ♫
Isn't under your skirt, without permission, an invasion of your privacy? And lots of women go commando or wear thongs, making them, nude or partially nude, under their skirts.
If you wanted people to see your underpants, you'd leave the skirt at home.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा