It’s not against the law in Massachusetts to secretly take photos up a woman’s skirt, the state’s highest court ruled Wednesday. The court dismissed charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested by Boston transit police for taking photos and videos up multiple women’s skirts or dresses on the subway.
The judges sympathized with the notion that a woman should be able to have a reasonable expectation not to have secret photos taken up her skirt when she goes out in public, but ruled that current state law does not address that. Massachusetts’ “Peeping Tom” laws, as written, only protect women from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Since upskirt photos are taken of fully clothed women in public, they don’t count, according to the court.
“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these 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 wrote.
Robertson’s lawyers defended his actions by arguing the photos were a matter of free speech.
Upskirt photos are becoming increasingly common with the spread of camera phones, but the law is slow to catch up with new technologies. Under most voyeurism laws, women must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is difficult to prove when she is in public. The Massachusetts court is hardly the first to acquit men who take these photos; perpetrators in Oklahoma, Indiana, and Washington have all been cleared by judges because the laws on the books did not apply. In response to one case in which a man legally took upskirt photos of a 10-year-old girl, Indiana lawmakers passed an upskirt ban in 2011. Other states have considered but not passed similarly updated voyeurism laws.
ew ew ewwwww
Today in news that makes me want to seek alternate living arrangements in a nearby galaxy…
Maybe I’m just not that bright, but isn’t that the whole purpose of setting precedent? To set a standard for how laws are interpreted and enforced in society?
In that scene
the very definition
of a wolf in sheep’s clothing
ap sex ed.
because public school sex ed sucks.
Oh my gosh amazing, accurate, GENDER NEUTRAL graphics?! I’ve died and gone to sex educator heaven. (The only thing better would be the inclusion of Intersex genitalia)
THIS is seriously good sex education
I want to do things with my life but I also want to bury myself in a forest and let the moss grow over me so where does that leave us
This guy wears yoga pants and hides his face, then confronts guys who look at his butt.
this is SO important
omg the one dude like “yeah I was starin, you got a nice ass”
okay like yeah the guy who was enjoying the ass was funny but can we talk about the number of people who acted violently when it was revealed it was a guy? violently. like they were ready to fight because they’d been denied a girl’s ass.
that’s way more important to me than some funny guy.
i was told…." - customers who wanna start some shit (via quentintortellini)
Klaudija Visockyte on flickr
RIP Trayvon Martin
gives me chills
He didn’t do a damn thing wrong
I’m gonna reblog this every time I see it because never forget.
oh my god