• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Massachusetts court says 'upskirt' photos are legal

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
32,849
Reaction score
14,466
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
(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.

Massachusetts court says 'upskirt' photos are legal - CNN.com

A "slippery" slope? A "hairy" situation?
 
Simple solution, wear pants, or at very least, don't go commando if you're wearing a skirt. :mrgreen:
 
I can see why they ruled this way. The law in question specifies nude or partially nude. The women in question were neither.

I think updating the law to prevent this probably does bring up some difficult questions, though.
 
Simple solution, wear pants, or at very least, don't go commando if you're wearing a skirt. :mrgreen:

Oddly enough, going commando would have made those photos a crime!
 
Oddly enough, going commando would have made those photos a crime!

Actually I don't think that is the case since a skirt is clothing is it not? Interesting question anyway.
 
Simple solution, wear pants, or at very least, don't go commando if you're wearing a skirt. :mrgreen:

Simple solution: Wear the biggest damned strap on you can find and a short skirt.
 
Simple solution: Wear the biggest damned strap on you can find and a short skirt.

This solution works for virtually any problem I can think of.
 
Could this mean kilts are making a comeback, all over the world? Hooray from most women! :lamo:

Greetings, EdwinWillers. :2wave:

Yes, but there's a trade off. If we're going to wear kilts we also expect to be provided with telephone poles to toss around and haggis cooked over an open fire....and whiskey.....lots and lots of whiskey.
 
Yes, but there's a trade off. If we're going to wear kilts we also expect to be provided with telephone poles to toss around and haggis cooked over an open fire....and whiskey.....lots and lots of whiskey.

I'll do a quick survey, but it seems your terms are reasonable..except for the haggis being cooked over an open fire. Does that mean at any time of the year, because I don't think Vesper and I want to trudge through mountains of snow, in bitter cold, just to get dinner on the table! I'm reasonably certain that some accommodation during negotiations can be reached, however. SMW might have something to add. :lamo:

Greetings, lutherf. :2wave:
 
I'll do a quick survey, but it seems your terms are reasonable..except for the haggis being cooked over an open fire. Does that mean at any time of the year, because I don't think Vesper and I want to trudge through mountains of snow, in bitter cold, just to get dinner on the table! I'm reasonably certain that some accommodation during negotiations can be reached, however. SMW might have something to add. :lamo:

Greetings, lutherf. :2wave:

Well...the Burns Supper is usually in January but this January we were in the 60's for the most part so I don't see why snow would be an issue.
 
Could this mean kilts are making a comeback, all over the world? Hooray from most women! :lamo:

Greetings, EdwinWillers. :2wave:
As long as those "most women" don't sit across from us on a bus with an iPhone in their laps pointed our direction. :)
 
Yes, but there's a trade off. If we're going to wear kilts we also expect to be provided with telephone poles to toss around and haggis cooked over an open fire....and whiskey.....lots and lots of whiskey.
SINGLE MALT whiskey, to be precise. ISLAY single malt whiskey, to be even more precise. :thumbs:
 
So this means a guy sees a woman sitting down he can now lie down on the floor and stair at her legs waiting for her to cross them. Next, he can walk up behind her and look over her shoulder down on her cleavage. Yes my fellow Americans we are truly moving forward much like the pyramids in Egypt.
 
So this means a guy sees a woman sitting down he can now lie down on the floor and stair at her legs waiting for her to cross them. Next, he can walk up behind her and look over her shoulder down on her cleavage. Yes my fellow Americans we are truly moving forward much like the pyramids in Egypt.

What? You can do all that now!

Though if you do I recommend wearing a cup.....and probably your cheap glasses too.
 
Here's the issue I have with this ruling. The man in question had no real way to know whether the picture he was taking was going to come out as a nude photo or not. The reason for this is that the skirt is specifically there to cover up that part of the body. A woman is not considered "nude" for going commando under a skirt, so anything under her skirt should still be considered private until/unless she shows it to someone (same for a man who wears some clothing that could be revealing). Going out of his way to photograph under a woman's skirt is not an incidental/unavoidable invasion like would be if just photographing someone out in public, what is normally seen.

Now, maybe it is best just to get the law to say that this should be illegal, but I personally feel that is redundant and unnecessary and that we honestly should just have some common sense in our laws here.

And here is exactly why I feel that this guy should have been found guilty.

"who was eventually arrested and charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity"

He was attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity since he didn't (as I noted before) have any foreknowledge of what state these women were in under their skirts. Did he know that these women had underwear on and that their underwear would completely cover all aspects of what was under their skirts, preventing him from photographing any nudity of these women? There is no way he could have that knowledge. Just because he failed to get that nude or partial nude photo, doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty of attempting to get it.
 
"who was eventually arrested and charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity"

He was attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity since he didn't (as I noted before) have any foreknowledge of what state these women were in under their skirts. Did he know that these women had underwear on and that their underwear would completely cover all aspects of what was under their skirts, preventing him from photographing any nudity of these women? There is no way he could have that knowledge. Just because he failed to get that nude or partial nude photo, doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty of attempting to get it.

The trouble is that motivation is always difficult to prove. I'm sure his lawyer argued that a reasonable person would expect that the vast majority of women in skirts are wearing underwear. Kinda like with hate crime laws, short of a statement coming from the perp revealing exactly that motivation it is pretty much impossible to prove.
 
The trouble is that motivation is always difficult to prove. I'm sure his lawyer argued that a reasonable person would expect that the vast majority of women in skirts are wearing underwear. Kinda like with hate crime laws, short of a statement coming from the perp revealing exactly that motivation it is pretty much impossible to prove.

But he was obviously trying to take a picture of something private. And the point is that he couldn't know whether that would be nude or not. Had he gotten a nude photo by accident, there would have been no question about whether he was guilty here or not (from the judge's wording). It is like setting up a camera in a restroom. There is no guarantee that the camera would ever pick up a photo of nudity, however, setting up a camera to take photos in a bathroom would still be charged under this law (in all likelihood) because there is always that chance and any reasonable person can see that chance there.
 
So this means a guy sees a woman sitting down he can now lie down on the floor and stair at her legs waiting for her to cross them. Next, he can walk up behind her and look over her shoulder down on her cleavage. Yes my fellow Americans we are truly moving forward much like the pyramids in Egypt.

I think the court's ruling was ridiculous. If one is 18 or older, I think they've committed a crime. Disorderly Conduct -- the same charge a Peeping Tom would face.
 
Well then. Since it's so legal and all, ladies feel free to post your best upskirt photo. LOL

I am reminded of a pictorial book called,"Under the Bleachers. Photos by Seymour Hiney."
 
But he was obviously trying to take a picture of something private. And the point is that he couldn't know whether that would be nude or not. Had he gotten a nude photo by accident, there would have been no question about whether he was guilty here or not (from the judge's wording). It is like setting up a camera in a restroom. There is no guarantee that the camera would ever pick up a photo of nudity, however, setting up a camera to take photos in a bathroom would still be charged under this law (in all likelihood) because there is always that chance and any reasonable person can see that chance there.
"Private" is not a term that is found in this law, so that's irrelevant.

Yes, he could have gotten a nude picture. But he didn't, and you can't prove his intent was to do that. The bathroom is not a good comparison, a reasonable person expects that underwear is removed in the bathroom, not at the checkout counter.

Yes, there's a chance. But any photo ever taken always has a chance that it accidentally catches a nip slip.
 
I think the court's ruling was ridiculous. If one is 18 or older, I think they've committed a crime. Disorderly Conduct -- the same charge a Peeping Tom would face.

That is not how disorderly conduct is defined, no. At least not in Mass.

A general guideline is not to assume you know more about the law than the judge does, or the prosecutor. If you think the judge is wrong, find documentation to back yourself up.

Instead of, you know, declaring the judge's ruling "ridiculous" based on a separate charge that doesn't even remotely apply here.
 
Back
Top Bottom