Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules it’s Legal to Record up Women’s Skirts in Public

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Hey, if you live in Mass. you just might wanna give your legislators a call. Couldn't believe this when I saw the title.



Massachusetts, which currently has the toughest wiretapping law in the country, forbidding you from secretly recording cops even if they have no expectation of privacy, is now one of the only states that allows you to secretly record up a woman’s skirt. It’s a contradictory position to say the least, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that it is only abiding by the written law, which states the following: "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."


According to Boston.com



The state’s highest court says “upskirting,” the practice of secretly photographing under a woman’s skirt, is not prohibited by state law. 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. The ruling came in the case of a man who allegedly took photos under the dresses of women on Green Line trolleys. The court focused on the language of the law, which prohibits secret photography of “a person … who is partially nude.” “A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering [private] 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 a unanimous ruling written by Justice Margot Botsford. The court said Suffolk County prosecutors, who argued that the Peeping Tom law should apply, had a “flawed” interpretation of the law.


This is why you can't legislate morality. So much for human decency.

Source




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
yea... if there's any possible way to get it wrong you can always count on the court system. Our entire legal system needs to be expunged. We should institute a National Hate A Lawyer Day.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Awesome! I'm moving to Boston and buying a new camera. lol.



(I'M JOKING!!!!! PLEASE DO NOT ATTACK! IT WAS A JOKE!)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
A lack of morals in our society and legal system is what causes this to occur. Seems like the ones making the laws are a bunch of horney men there who feel that their kind have rights above those of most people



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Can't wait for the new video series "Kennedys Gone Wild"



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


What? A state supreme court failed to comprehend the spirit of a law?

I am shocked... shocked!



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Yawn.

Have you SEEN what's out on the interwebs?

Aside from that, I think the judgesical misread the law. I read it an entirely different way. Then again, I'm not a bottom-sucking...er...an attorney.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


It's already out. It's part of a double DVD set with 'The Romneys Do Dallas'.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

schadenfreude
This is why you can't legislate morality. So much for human decency.


it looks like they went out of their way to not legislate morality.
so good news right?



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

minusinfinity
Awesome! I'm moving to Boston and buying a new camera. lol.



(I'M JOKING!!!!! PLEASE DO NOT ATTACK! IT WAS A JOKE!)


You heathen bastard you!
LOL!



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Low life perverts rejoice!Seriously who's running this madness?I guess these people have no clue of the messages being sent to the public with these idiotic rulings.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Further proof that the blame for the moral erosion of society can be fairly and squarely attributed to those individuals whom are employed to be societies' representatives.

Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The people of Massachusetts should revolt and demand termination of employment and file criminal charges.

A disgusting ruling which completely disrespects our sisters, daughters and mothers.




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The article says that they are fixing that law to make it illegal, many apparently not having been aware that its "legal". That's a much different story than what the sensationalist title suggests.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


great. so they are planning to now legislate morality.


everyone in this topic is a hypocrite. its sometimes ok to make specific laws regarding menial things, and sometimes its overstepping authority.

next we will hear the story of the guy arrested for taking his family pictures at the beach.
and all the same people will be back in this topic throwing a fit about legislating morality.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Massachusetts, the first state in America to not have any female residents...



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
to be honest this seems to be a fair ruling.. when you are outside your in the publics eye.
there are literally MILLIONS of cameras.. some private others not so much, that watch you all the time go about your daily lives
in one day you could end up being on thousands of videos..

and when your in public knowing there are cameras around. you should act accordingly..
maybe not pick your nose when you think no ones looking..or pick that wedgie out of your crack when it rides up..
because it may just end up being on funniest home videos...its all a choice. just like wearing a skirt or dress instead of jeans no one forces you to wear clothing that can malfunction.

a lot of you talk morality but forget they don't teach morality in school that and values are left up to the parents.

to me this is akin to a girl wearing a really low cut shirt that gets mad when guys stare at her chest..
who made the mistake him or her logistically she did..but morally so did he



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Film up my ladys dress and expect to be singing soprano and totally unable to enjoy your movie.

Sometimes vigilante justice fills the bill.

Creeper/pervs will be dealt with accordingly....
edit on 5-3-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


This can only make you wonder what these legislators do in there spare time, I would like to see them try it with a bunch of angry scot's with claymoors though.
Sorry about the kilt joke but seriously these legislator's have no regard for the safety of woman as a sexual devient usually starts with voyeurism then groping and finally rape, so we can safely assume these people whom made this judgement do not have daughters whose safety they care about and are either dumb or just plain rotten minded with a possible side line in the above themselve's, disgusting idiot's.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Let's make a new movie .... Throw the perv under the train.......



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Skyfloating
The article says that they are fixing that law to make it illegal, many apparently not having been aware that its "legal". That's a much different story than what the sensationalist title suggests.



the issue is that the current "peeping tom" law says it is illegal to record in bathrooms, dressing rooms etc. my guess is that, when the original law was written, there wasn't a way to covertly snap pics in this manner and, therefore, it wasn't a big enough issue to warrant laws.

Now, with cell phone cameras, tiny hand helds, digital everything, the art of covert photography is beyond prevalent.

I believe it was pointed out that what the guy did was beyond wrong but, given the wording of the law, not illegal.

Expect the law to be changed as quickly as possible.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join