View Single Post
Old 03-06-2014, 07:09 AM   #464
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,234
Thanks: 9,840
Thanked 34,630 Times in 7,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474861
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default Mass. High Court: Subway Upskirt Photos Not Illegal

Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that a man accused of secretly snapping photos up a woman’s skirt on an MBTA train did not break the law.

So-called Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas, the court said. The SJC ruling went on to suggest that the act in this case should be illegal, noting other states including New York and Florida have explicit laws criminalizing public upskirting.

Under the law, the state has to prove five criteria:

That the defendant willfully photographed, videotaped, or electronically surveilled; the subject was another person who was nude or partially nude; the defendant did so with the intent to secretly conduct or hide his photographing activity; the defendant conducted such activity when the other person was in a place and circumstance where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being “so photographed”; and the defendant did so without the other person’s knowledge or consent.

The SJC decision says a woman on the MBTA “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.”

Prosecutors argued that a person has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothes. But justices ruled that because the alleged incident occurred on a public trolley, there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. They noted that while the prosecution’s “proposition is eminently reasonable,” the current writing of the law that Robertson was charged under does not cover that particular circumstance.

“Because the MBTA is a public transit system operating in a public place and uses cameras, the two alleged victims here were not in a place and circumstance where they reasonably would or could have had an expectation of privacy,” a draft of the ruling stated.

Prosecutors said after the ruling that they planed to take the matter to the Legislature and request a re-write to the current state law.

“Every person, male or female, has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothing,” Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley said. “If the the statute as written doesn’t protect that privacy, then I’m urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does.”

The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law,” DeLeo said. “The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today’s technology immediately.”

Senate President Therese Murray says she is “stunned and disappointed” and the Senate “will act swiftly.”

Women riding the MBTA say they are outraged by the decision.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/03/0...not-illegal/2/
Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post: