Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Another court decision...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another court decision...

    Mass. Supreme Court: Subway 'upskirt' photos not illegal

    BOSTON — 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.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

  • #2
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Mass. Supreme Court: Subway 'upskirt' photos not illegal

    BOSTON — 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.
    Foolishness, but easily remedied. The court decided the issue on the letter of the law: revise the law as needed to prevent this invasion of privacy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Seems like it would go under some stalking or peeping tom law.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Seems like it would go under some stalking or peeping tom law.
        Depends on how the law is phrased. Most "peeping tom" laws that I am aware of are phrased to protect you in your home, or in other places where you have an expectation of privacy. Because of the way the laws were phrased, this slimebag got away with it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Outis View Post
          Depends on how the law is phrased. Most "peeping tom" laws that I am aware of are phrased to protect you in your home, or in other places where you have an expectation of privacy. Because of the way the laws were phrased, this slimebag got away with it.
          A woman should not have a reasonable expectation of privacy up her skirt?
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            A woman should not have a reasonable expectation of privacy up her skirt?
            Yeah, methinks there's a retarded technicality in the law.

            What a loser.

            ETA: Just to be abundantly clear, I'm calling the creep in the news story a loser, not you, CP.
            I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

            Comment


            • #7
              I foresee a legislative remedy in Massachusetts very soon.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #8
                Several women should get together, corner the guy, pull down his pants and take a picture of him in his underwear, then put up posters of him all over the subway saying "Have you seen this pervert?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Several women should get together, corner the guy, pull down his pants and take a picture of him in his underwear, then put up posters of him all over the subway saying "Have you seen this pervert?"
                  He might enjoy it and give them a surprise they didn't expect.
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Recently here in Atlanta some guy was taking pictures up the skirt of a woman in a store -- until her boyfriend saw him and seriously decked him. He was not charged (the boyfriend that is -- the pervert was arrested when the police examined the photos on his cellphone).

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Recently here in Atlanta some guy was taking pictures up the skirt of a woman in a store -- until her boyfriend saw him and seriously decked him. He was not charged (the boyfriend that is -- the pervert was arrested when the police examined the photos on his cellphone).
                      Good.
                      I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        A woman should not have a reasonable expectation of privacy up her skirt?
                        "Expectation of privacy" is a legal term defined by the person's location or situation, not by their state of dress. Which is a fancy way of saying that the mass laws were well-intended, but the guy found a loophole. As Zymologist states, it's a "retarded technicality."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Recently here in Atlanta some guy was taking pictures up the skirt of a woman in a store -- until her boyfriend saw him and seriously decked him. He was not charged (the boyfriend that is -- the pervert was arrested when the police examined the photos on his cellphone).
                          Good for the boyfriend!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Outis View Post
                            "Expectation of privacy" is a legal term defined by the person's location or situation, not by their state of dress.
                            Yes, Outis, I'm well aware of that, but thanks for the "lesson".

                            Which is a fancy way of saying that the mass laws were well-intended, but the guy found a loophole. As Zymologist states, it's a "retarded technicality."
                            Agreed -- I'd like to actually see their codified ordinance, rather than a summary, but a friend is picking me up for fish tacos, and there ARE priorities!
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Yes, Outis, I'm well aware of that, but thanks for the "lesson".
                              My apologies. I did not mean to cause offense, and shall take the necessary steps to ensure that I do not cause offense in the future.

                              Agreed -- I'd like to actually see their codified ordinance, rather than a summary, but a friend is picking me up for fish tacos, and there ARE priorities!
                              https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...272/Section105

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Whateverman, Today, 07:17 PM
                              0 responses
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Whateverman  
                              Started by Whateverman, Today, 04:39 PM
                              1 response
                              15 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Maranatha  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 03:30 PM
                              4 responses
                              45 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Whateverman  
                              Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 08:11 PM
                              4 responses
                              41 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Bill the Cat  
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 07:16 PM
                              28 responses
                              122 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Working...
                              X