Discussion
  • Read More
    nopunin10didPhoenix Tso
    3/05/14 2:10pm

    At the core of the Commonwealth's argument to the contrary is the proposition that a woman, and in particular a woman riding on a public trolley, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in not having a stranger secretly take photographs up her skirt. The proposition is eminently reasonable, but § 105 (b ) in its current form does not address it.

    I think you shouldn't have left out this part from the linked article. Sounds to me like the judge found it clearly a pervy thing to do, and something that probably should be addressed by the law, but that the law as written doesn't handle it.

    Frustrating, yes, but I generally find it better for judges to at least /try/ to interpret according to the letter of the law, especially for scenarios in which one can reasonably expect a legislature to handle the heavy lifting.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      andsmokeit is mrs tormund giantsbanenopunin10did
      3/05/14 2:16pm

      Yeah, this article was a bit misleading.

      I feel like they are saying: "Yes, under the current law, this is legal. But the law should be changed so that, in the future, this will be illegal because it is super fucked up."

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      LocoEstebannopunin10did
      3/05/14 2:16pm

      By far the best take on the issue by any commentor here thus far. The judge has to rule to what the law states, and has laid out a clear precedent for the legislature to do the right thing. The judge handled this correctly. Now, will the legislature? Debatable, but the one in MA is better than most states.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SplatterfilmPhoenix Tso
    3/05/14 2:03pm

    Hope some Massachusetts Catholic private school girls refuse to wear their skirted uniforms on the grounds of immodesty based on this. Good for the lulz while I'm drinking the pain away.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      GemmabetaSplatterfilm
      3/05/14 2:10pm

      Someone explain this to me, why are dresses still considered more modest than trousers, in this day and age?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BilllingtonGemmabeta
      3/05/14 2:12pm

      because pants are for boys, heathen.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    cheerful_exgirlfriendPhoenix Tso
    3/05/14 2:13pm

    I guess the best thing to do is wear some panties with a corporate logo on them so that if your panty pic is published the logo's owner will sue to remove it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      LocoEstebancheerful_exgirlfriend
      3/05/14 2:17pm

      Interesting idea!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ : Riot GRRR is RUNNING WILDPhoenix Tso
    3/05/14 2:03pm

    Somebody should flick the Beantown out of existence.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      kerfuffle-truffleshuffleʕ•ᴥ•ʔ : Riot GRRR is RUNNING WILD
      3/05/14 2:19pm

      . . . I see what you did there.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MacrochelysPhoenix Tso
    3/05/14 2:03pm

    I thought I had a reasonable expectation of privacy under my clothes. Silly me.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Bluestar2k9Macrochelys
      3/05/14 2:10pm

      Totally right? I mean, what a stupid notion that we should expect to be allowed to keep men away from our bodies....

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    recidiviciousPhoenix Tso
    3/05/14 2:35pm

    I foresee an upswing in pervy losers on the train being "accidentally" stomped on while acquiring their creepshots.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      sportz.starPhoenix Tso
      3/05/14 3:01pm

      I have to imagine it's really hard to pass a law that properly and narrowly criminalizes the creepy aspect while addressing what this is: taking a photo of a fully clothed person in a public space. It's certainly creepy, and gross, and I don't want anyone trying to get panty pictures of me, but what's the specificity in the law? Does it apply only when people wear skirts/dresses but not pants? So a photo of a man's crotch in tight pants would not be criminalized even if the picture taker is being creepy? What about down shirt photos? Of men? What if someone has a shoe fetish and is taking pictures with intent to use them for sexual purposes, but they are just of shoes? Can we criminalize that?

      I feel for the poor legislators that are going to be pushed to clarify this law. It's a challenge.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Sailor JupiterPhoenix Tso
        3/05/14 4:27pm

        Reason #17526 why I don't ride the Green Line. Everyone on the Orange Line is too damn tired to be taking upskirt photos. Also Orange line conductors will fuck you up if you delay the train with your perviness.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          FallenPhoenix Tso
          3/05/14 2:21pm

          Ruling may be considered "bullshit" but unless and until people pester the legislature to pass a new law — and they may so seek — the MA Supreme Court is correct. Yes, this is in fact an example of an unfortunate effect of a (proper) interpretation of the law (do not expect this to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and have it say otherwise).

          "Who in their right mind interprets what's under a woman's skirt as not fitting the "partially nude" definition?"

          Because they aren't walking around bottomless; they have a skirt on. We womenz must be cognizant of what is going on around us. Naturally, some person nearby engaging in a weird physical posture suggesting that a party is intending to take a photo of their nethers should be met with a "WTF?! Is there a reason your hand/arm is in that very awkward position?"

          "And who has the audacity to tell women that they can't expect not to be violated by a pervert taking photos of their private parts, no matter if they happen to be covered up by underwear?"

          This and many other courts will (properly) have that audacity as it relates to expectation of privacy. You SAID you understood that "courts come to unpopular rulings bewcause of [the law] that lay people [sic] might not understand". You're contradicting yourself with this observation. If the women aren't in a bathroom, bedroom or in their own home (and this means without a roommate or invitee), they don't have an expectation of privacy. In other words, do not go commando without forethought, and be on guard about actions of pervs. (This is simply common sense, but now it's official: you must protect yourself instead of expecting there will be a law for everything (and/or that it will be properly applied if violated.)

          The Court says that the Massachusetts Legislature should rewrite the Peeping Tom law to cover such instances. But even with this proposed legislative solution (and who knows if the Legislature will take this up), this ruling is bullshit.

          In advance, I will say "sorry you feel that way" for anything not based on the legal issues.

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            FallenFallen
            3/05/14 2:56pm

            Apologies for not deleting the two lines of original article when copying-pasting for my own comments (beginning with "The Court says that the Massachusetts Legislature should rewrite the Peeping Tom law ..."). My bad, but I cannot at this point "edit" out.

            Reply
            <
          • Read More
            ntheunthoFallen
            3/05/14 4:05pm

            We womenz must be cognizant of what is going on around us. Naturally, some person nearby engaging in a weird physical posture suggesting that a party is intending to take a photo of their nethers should be met with a "WTF?! Is there a reason your hand/arm is in that very awkward position?"

            Incase that wasn't sarcastic (it didn't sound it other than womenz), I'd like to point out that if a woman in a moderately short skirt is standing and someone has a bag camera or whatever, it probably wouldn't look like an awkward position. Heck, they might even be able to put small upward facing cameras on the top of their shoes.

            Now I don't even really want to wear my skirts, and they're pretty much floor length.

            Reply
            <
        • Read More
          fightinginfishnetsPhoenix Tso
          3/05/14 2:08pm

          Wait, you mean I finally have a real reason to dislike Boston, other than my baseball team? Dammit, MA. I didn't want to actually dislike you.

          Reply
          <