Mass. court: Subway 'upskirt' photos not illegal

[bananas]

Source: Associated Press

A man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday.

The Supreme Judicial Court overruled a lower court that had upheld charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police who set up a sting after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up female riders' skirts and dresses.

The ruling immediately prompted top Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to update state law.

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.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/05/upskirt-photos-not-illegal/6093119/

[In_The_Wind]

1. That really is a shame!

[VWolf]

2. "The ruling immediately prompted top Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to update state law."

Ya think???

[elias7]

9. Not sure I understand what you mean by "ya think???"

Perhaps it was obvious to you that current laws didn't cover upskirt photos, and that the supreme court would conclude that, and that lawmakers would in uncharacteristic fashion create legislation immediately to close a loophole. Who and what about the process here are you ridiculing?

[VWolf]

10. Dunno

It just seems that there shouldn't have been a loophole in the first place.

[elias7]

11. I see

I guess it took this kind of case to address this specific, and somewhat new form voyeurism. I'm just thinking at how well the system worked in this case: judicial branch defines the limits of a law, legislators expeditiously craft new law to cover a clear gap in the law that most would agree on.

[toby jo]

3. I'd think there was an 'expectation of decorum' inference, no?

They sure got lost on this one.

[davidpdx]

4. Unfortunately the same thing has been a problem here in Korea

Although they have pretty tough laws against doing so. Often in the news there will be a story about someone doing this. The other problem is old guys groping women on the subway.

[brett_jv]

5. Obviously they wanted it ...

Otherwise, why were they dressed that way?

[Lamonte]

6. Panties?

From what I read, the judge ruled it was OK because the ladies have panties on? How can he assume they all do all the time? I guarantee there are some that don't, especially on hot summer days.

[olddad56]

7. So if the women riders on the subway stopped wearing panties, this guy would go to jail?

so, it must be the fault of the women riders that this guy isn't in jail. Go figure.

[Eugene]

8. Mass. lawmakers vote to ban 'upskirt' photos

Source: USA Today

Mass. lawmakers vote to ban 'upskirt' photos

Michael Winter, USA TODAY 10:50 p.m. EST March 6, 2014

A day after the state's highest court upheld the legality of "upskirt" photos, Massachusetts lawmakers Thursday voted to ban the secret pictures of women's and children's "sexual or intimate parts."

The measure, which sailed through the House and Senate, awaits Gov. Deval Patrick's likely signature.

Renegade paparazzi could be jailed more than two years and fined $5,000 if the victim is 18 or older, but the penalties would jump to five years behind bars or a $10,000 fine for anyone under age.

"It is sexual harassment. It is an assault on another person ... women and children should be able to go to public places without feeling like they are not protected by the law," Senate President Therese Murray said after the vote, Boston.com reported.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/06/massachusetts-upskirt-photos-outlawed/6138015/