Fox News Guest/Defense Attorney: Upskirt Victims ‘Made a Conscious Choice To Wear Certain Clothes'

[big_dog]

Defense attorney Evangeline Gomez told Fox News on Sunday that victims of so-called “upskirt” photos did not deserve legal protection if they made a “conscious choice” to wear revealing clothes. Last week, D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna ruled that photos taken by Christopher Cleveland did not violate the law because women sitting above him on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial had placed their crotches and buttocks in the public domain.

On Sunday, former prosecutor Jonna Spilbor explained to Fox News that the ruling was “ludicrous” because the judge said that “a woman’s private parts will become public property by virtue of a wardrobe malfunction.” Gomez, however, argued that Judge McKenna had made the right decision.

“She can’t make up the facts,” Gomez said. “There were certain facts in this case, and she’s applying the law of the facts.” “This was not a situation of upskirting,” she continued. “These women made a conscious choice — as the judge pointed out in her decision — to wear certain clothes that day, and some of their body parts were the public domain.”

Fox News host Peter Johnson Jr. likened the case to blaming rape victims for the way they dressed. “Right, blaming the victim,” Spilbor agreed. “There are just certain body parts that automatically have an expectation of privacy attached to them. A woman’s hooha happens to be one of those.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/fox-news-guest-upskirt-victims-made-a-conscious-choice-to-wear-certain-clothes/

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. Intentionally misleading title. nt

[underpants]

2. Hooha

hooray for hooha

[winter is coming]

32. I'm waiting to see that one in a judicial opinion. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. So how would this attorney feel about a camera in the bathroom stall where she pees?

didn't she just make a conscious choice to bear her ass in a public domain?

[Nye Bevan]

6. In a bathroom stall one legally has an "expectation of privacy".

Sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, one does not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. well when I am walking around in public....I have an expectation of what is under my clothes as

being the same expectation of privacy....

Is it going to be okay to take a film of the naked showering men in a locker room as "not having an expectation of privacy"?

[Nye Bevan]

8. I believe in a locker room shower there would also be an expectation of privacy. (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. How ....they are not showering privately....they are showering publically among each other....

[jberryhill]

12. would someone expect a picture to be taken there?

A locker room is not a public park. Nobody was taking a shower on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

These are the steps of the Lincoln Memorial:



That particular picture was taken and is shown on the blog of the woman in pink in the center.

In order to have that picture taken of herself on those steps, did anyone say to the two girls on the right that their picture from that angle was going to be published on the internet?

However, at any given time anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people are sitting on that major tourist attraction, and just as many are taking pictures of it.

What would you do? Ban taking pictures at one of the most photographed objects in DC, or ban people sitting on the steps in short skirts? Because you are going to have to do one or the other.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. I don't "expect" a camera up my skirt either!

same difference...

[Thor_MN]

18. What if "up" isn't vertical?

If I were trying to change clothes using a towel to shield myself from view and left the towel open in a direction, I would not expect to have privacy from that direction. Likewise, if wearing a short bathrobe and nothing else, I understand that stuff is going to be visible if I sit down.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. which means its open season to have your shit photographed and published?

as a matter of fact.....I got a video camera for Christmas from my husband....who took it to work sometimes....

Turned out that he and his buddy were working on power lines underground.....and they were in a position to take pictures up women's skirts.....this was over 20 yrs ago. I happened to find said video and needless to say had a conniption! These two lunkheads thought it was all in fun and didn't see anything wrong with this at first....until I gave them a piece of my mind...

So are you telling me that because these women wore skirts in public....what those two did would be considered totally legal?

[Thor_MN]

24. Can you explain the difference between this case and pictures taken at the beach?

Pictures taken at the beach would likely be even more revealing, yet you see no prosecutions for pictures taken at a beach.

If they exposed portions of their body to common view at a public venue, then no laws were broken. On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, you ARE going to be photographed. No escaping that. In other words, a rational person has NO expectation of privacy in the public areas at a National Monument.

I have not seen or heard much of what the pictures contained. If he used a long lens to zoom in, he is sleazy, but not guilty of breaking a law. If they were like the picture posted elsewhere in this thread, he's not even sleazy. If he had a hidden camera mounted in a bag and was placing it at the feet of people, then he is guilty. Details are in short supply at the story.

[Brigid]

5. So men have to be specifically told . . .

That upskirting is against the law?

[Whiskeytide]

10. Very clear case of apples trying to debate oranges...

Peeing in a bathroom stall and devising means to take pictures "up-skirt" are very different from the facts in this case. This case was much more like Britney Spears exiting a car and flashing the people on the sidewalk.

I'm not a big fan of either side of any such behavior, but its not fair to say this judge ruled that taking pictures up skirt, or in any domain where you have a traditional expectation of privacy, was ok. That's just not what the ruling was.

Edited for a couple of typos. Damn phone keys!

[Laffy Kat]

11. So there is no illegality of harassing a woman walking into an abortion clinic. . .

to obtain a Constitutionally protected procedure. And yet sticking a camera up a skirt of an unsuspecting woman is perfectly fine. I'm sensing a pattern here..

[Whiskeytide]

13. No one stuck a camera ...

... up the skirt of an unsuspecting woman IN THIS CASE. It's different.

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. this attorney specifically said "upskirt".....we KNOW what that means...

we are not naive and specifically the attire being worn was stated as the reason. Sounds pretty Sharia law to me!

[Whiskeytide]

21. Well, the lawyer's legal analysis...

... was correct for the most part, but she was sloppy with her words and the facts. "Up-skirt" does have a specific meaning. These shots might have been of things normally up skirt, but they were not a crime because they were in the public domain. All the lawyer did was blame that on the woman's attire- which is a stupid way to look at it. But it doesn't change the fact that the ruling was proper on the facts in this case.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. so anytime a woman has an accident and some part of her body is accidentally exposed...

she is subject to being published?

[Whiskeytide]

25. I can't really address that question as posed...

Let me say this:

Would the photographer be an asshole? Yes.

Could hebe liable for civil damages? Maybe. Depends on other facts.

Could he go to jail? No. Not a crime.

[Thor_MN]

17. Maybe I'm missing details, but where did the "sticking a camera up a skirt" occur in this case?

I don't approve of what seems apparent, but from what little I have read, he took pictures of what was in plain view. It doesn't sound like he contrived to have a hidden camera mounted on the ground. Maybe he did, and in that case the ruling would be wrong. But if he took a picture of what was visible to anyone standing/sitting where he was, then what he did was not nice, but not illegal.

[Sherman A1]

19. Details are severely elusive with this report.

The article in my opinion is rather poorly written and about sensationalism.

I very much believe in a person's right to privacy, but in a public setting as was indicated, assuming no attempt on the photographer to be covert. I don't see it as illegal.

[immoderate]

16. If someone displays body parts in public they may well be recorded.

--imm

[gratuitous]

23. Well, her scuzzball client chose to carry his testicles out in public

So, if someone kicks those gonads up between his shoulder blades, I don't think he deserves legal protection. Leave 'em at home if you don't want people kicking them.

[Takket]

26. Simple solution...

The women in this country agree that they will all wear nothing by long baggy clothing that covers up every piece if skin and every curve until such time as they know they are safe from people shoving cameras up their dresses. The males in congress will pass a constitutional amendment banning up skirting within a day.

[Brigid]

28. New business for the women of Afghanistan:

Sewing burquas for American women to wear in protest.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Well, I guess if those women 'placed their

crotches and buttocks in the public domain', they should probably be charged with indecent exposure. If a man in a kilt sat on the upper steps of the monument spread so that his 'crotch was in the public domain', I don't doubt someone would be along very shortly to arrest him for public indecency, given how many minors are frequently wandering around that monument.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

29. Fox news is an upskirt camera.

[Dr. Strange]

30. Because when you turn it on...

you see so many asses?

[Whiskeytide]

31. Classic. Well done. N/t.

[Louisiana1976]

33. When I'm out in public I wear either pants or shorts so I avoid that. I can't recall the last time I

wore a skirt. Anyway, sometime ago I heard on a radio talk show about a sleazeball who was at one of our local Krogers taking pictures up women's skirts. They tried, but didn't, catch him.