Law & technology clash: Massachusetts court says 'upskirt' photos are legal

[justiceischeap]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/us/massachusetts-upskirt-photography/index.html

(CNN) -- 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.

"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," wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.

CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said the law has not caught up to technology and called it an assault on a woman's right to privacy.

Off course, I just love the comments that state if a woman expects complete privacy while riding public transportation, she should wear pants. Even in this situation there are people blaming the female victim.

[Blue_Tires]

1. That's a real "WTF?" type of ruling...

[3catwoman3]

2. WTF indeed!

And the judge is a woman. Jesus H.

[justiceischeap]

7. She ruled correctly given the law

but that still doesn't make it any less disturbing.

[gopiscrap]

3. IMHO the guy is a creepy perv but....

I agree with the ruling. I looked up the law and agree with the court. The legislature screwed up when they wrote the code!

[justiceischeap]

6. Hence my title, law & tech clashing

I hope they write new legislation to include upskirting...but you're correct, the judge ruled correctly with the law written as is.

[gopiscrap]

8. Yeah, I have seen this in several instances

the law needs to catch up!

[seaglass]

9. They are:

Last edited Thu Mar 6, 2014, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/03/05/mass-high-court-says-upskirting-legal-under-state-law/BMwo1SJPbKtMzzEUwZdjdK/story.html

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said today that a state law intended to prohibit “Peeping Tom” voyeurism of completely or partially undressed people did not apply to people who take pictures of people who are fully clothed.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo said this afternoon that the Legislature would immediately begin looking at ways of closing the loophole in the law.

“The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law. The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today’s technology immediately,” DeLeo said in a statement.

More updates today:
Lawmakers act quickly to outlaw 'upskirting'

Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford) told the News Service during a recess in the House's session Thursday that Speaker Robert DeLeo is very concerned about the ruling, and House lawmakers want to address it quickly.

Donato said House officials were trying to figure out what legislative vehicle they would use to pass something quickly, with action possible later in the day. The House recessed its morning session, planning to return later.

"We are trying to find the right vehicle and the right language," Donato said.

Meanwhile in a radio interview on Thursday, Senate President Therese Murray also vowed action, saying that taking photographs up the skirts of women on public transportation is sexual harassment.

Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_25288059/lawmakers-act-quickly-outlaw-upskirting#ixzz2vClxUjR5

[sufrommich]

4. Jesus.

[Nye Bevan]

5. The legislature needs to pass a law to ban this creepy activity ASAP.

But I don't agree with the criticism of the judges. Courts exist to enforce laws, not to make up new laws when one does not exist.

[Token Republican]

10. Law was poorly written

It doesn't apply to this case. She wasn't nude or partially nude in a place where she could expect privacy from being semi or fully naked. Law needs to be revised.

[pipi_k]

11. As a resident

of Mass, I'm shocked at this ruling.


And I want to comment on this:

Off course, I just love the comments that state if a woman expects complete privacy while riding public transportation, she should wear pants. Even in this situation there are people blaming the female victim.

Telling a woman that if she expects privacy while out on public transportation (or on escalators or staircases) she should wear pants is NOT "blaming the female victim".

Truly blaming the victim would involve telling her that SHE is the reason why perverts are doing this thing. Women are NOT at fault for this.

But...since pigs and perverts are out there being protected by (the current) law, which I hope changes sometime soon, there are things they can do to thwart the perverts. Like, if they're on an escalator, standing a bit sideways to better see who's behind them. Staircases...holding their skirts a little tighter around wherever the hems happen to be. Or wearing pants.

As I said above, this is NOT blaming the victim. It's ensuring that women don't BECOME a victim.

[justiceischeap]

12. To me it's akin to saying a woman deserved to get raped

because of what she wore. Why should a woman have to curb the way she dresses so she doesn't become a victim of this type of behavior? I agree there are ways to combat this when on an escalator or when sitting on the metro/bus and women should be aware of their surroundings, but suggesting we need to dress a certain way is not the answer.

[pipi_k]

14. You're right...

a woman shouldn't have to

But since there are pigs and perverts out there, what other choice is there?

You tell me.

What does a woman do until the law changes?

And even if/when the law changes, how would a woman know she had been the victim of an upskirt photo unless she saw the guy doing it, or someone else did and told her...


So that's my question...what do women do in the meantime to avoid being victims?

[Xithras]

13. Absent laws stating otherwise, we have very little privacy in public.

If you are out in public, you have no legal expectation of privacy. As a photographer, I have the right to photograph you in public. This right has been upheld by the courts as a protected activity. Your rights don't kick in unless I try to sell the image commercially or otherwise exploit your likeness, and even then your rights are largely limited to compensation after the fact.


So...

I can take a photo of you walking down the street, because that's that you're showing to the public.

If you have a low cut blouse that exposes half of your breasts, I can take a photo of those because that's what you're showing to the public.

If you have a high slit up the side of your skirt and your hip is visible, I can photograph it because that's what you're showing to the public.

What this judge said is that, absent state laws proclaiming otherwise, if you dress in such a way that your undergarments are visible in public, it can be photographed just like any other part of your body that is being publicly exposed.

Clearly this is an issue that the legislature needs to address. The simple fix is to pass a law making it illegal to photograph beneath another persons clothing without permission. Most states already have upskirt laws like these on the books.

[Blue_Adept]

15. Exactly.

It'll be a quick and pretty painless law that will be put on the books and we can get on with things. Sometimes a loophole exists. But the framing of it in the media is what's terrible because of how they're phrasing what happened, stating that we allow it rather than a loophole exists that will be closed.

[Sheldon Cooper]

16. Except that their undergarments are NOT visible in public.

These assholes are pointing their cameras UP their skirts, to take pictures of things that simply aren't visible to the public.

[Xithras]

17. They are not visible from typical viewing angles, but they are "visible". Hence the court case.

Is it visible to a child? A short person? What if they're walking up a flight of stairs and the photographer happens to be sitting under it? Glass catwalks?

The problem with this debate is that the undergarments ARE visible, they're just not visible from typical viewing angles. It's not illegal to lay down on the ground, or to mount a camera on your toe, and the undergarments are visible from that angle.

That's why a law is needed. The undergarments, in these cases, are BOTH "visible" and "beneath clothing". A simple law banning the photographing of ANYTHING beneath a persons clothing would solve this problem. That way, their "visibility" becomes irrelevant...if it's under clothing it's illegal to photograph.

A well crafted law of this type could also ban downblouse shots, which are another related problem.