Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by will33, Mar 6, 2014.
We are sucha nanny-state about every other thing, but not this? Just because it's not a law doesn't make it okay. Jeez. It's public lewdness, plain and simple. Pervs always be lookin for loop holes (and peep holes)
But, given that it's MA, it doesn't surprise me one bit...(which is why my 11 year old cannot legally ride his 4x4, because the engine displacement is deemed too high [110cc vs. defined 90cc limit for his age], even with full protective gear and riding with ME...) That rule / law /whatev went into effect 4 months after I got him the bike.
Here is a link to the court's decision:
[edit: the link I posted earlier timed out. To find the opinion, go here http://www.massreports.com/CourtDecisions/Default.aspx and look for the Robertson opinion. If it's no longer there, go here http://www.massreports.com/OpinionArchive/Default.aspx and search for the "Robertson" opinion posted March 5, 2014.]
I've only had a chance to skim the decision, but my impression is that the court believed that the defendant's conduct was wrong, but was constrained by the language of a poorly-drawn statute that, on its face, didn't apply to the defendant's conduct. The court wrote, "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." The court also noted that, "Other States, recognizing that women have such an expectation of privacy, have enacted provisions specifically criminalizing the type of upskirting the defendant is alleged to have attempted."
stupid is, as stupid does
Justice Margot Botsford must not have had a lot of attention from her sexual interests when she was younger...
Looks like I better make a quick trip to MA before they start re-writing laws. Thanks for the heads up Will!
Um...I'm jumping on the Red Line it's almost rush hour!
Well, in fairness to Justice Botsford, this case was a criminal prosecution under a specific statute. The court's role is not to make its own independent decision about whether it believes the defendant's conduct was right or wrong, but to determine whether the defendant's conduct violated the statute under which he was charged. The court is not saying that the conduct is right, but merely that it is not a violation of that particular statute. In other words, the court is basically saying to the legislature, "you need to change this statute to cover this situation, as other states have done."
Doin' what I can from down here.
If he happened to run across one that wasn't wearing any underwear, would it fall under some other statute? According to how things are now, there is no law specifically banning his upskirting. Would one really know she was pantiless before the photo was taken?
These lawmakers really need to have a big ol' discussion about this.
If they have the "right" to.flaunt it I have the "right" to.look. just for the record they also have the right to cover it up!
I don't know why people waste their time with these pictures when every smartphone there is has a videocamera on it.
This thing should've been easy setup for some decent jokes.
"say (grilled) cheese!"
headline: headlines on tb are more sensationalized than network news.
Tit'll be ok, we'll finger it out.
I think I'd have to see a bunch of photos to make an informed opinion.
...and that got fixed
The crime is punishable by up 2½ years in jail or a fine of up to $5,000.