Upskirt photo case tossed out

[Deleted]

A Virginia man facing charges of voyeurism after taking ‘upskirt’ photos of women at the Lincoln Memorial had his case dismissed by a female judge who stated that women should have no expectation of privacy in a public place.

Webpage Link - RawStory.com

YouTube version of video of news segment from linked article.

[Deleted]

Wait... what?

a FEMALE judge rules that a woman doesn't have an "expectation of privacy" under her skirt?

[ZaireinHD]

yea the upskirt case was considered legal in New York I think late last year!

[busymom]

So, next, will this guy be taking pics down a guy's pants?  Totally creepy!  (After all, a man should have no expectation of privacy...)    The judge messed up.

[ZaireinHD]

not his pants.....his Kilt...

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

It's deplorable that this case was dismissed.

Outrageous. And that a female judge dismissed it, makes me question the legal system.

The woman or women had every right to expect privacy from such an invasion.

That judge was completely out of line. I'd be suing.

[billisonboard]

"There was absolutely no evidence that on the day of his arrest, the defendant engaged in behavior that could be described in any way as ‘upskirting’ (the taking of photographs up a woman’s skirt), as the judge made clear in her 3-1/2 page ruling," said court spokeswoman Leah Gurowitz in an e-mail to ABC7 News.

Read more: www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/judge-rules-man-who-took-photos-up-ladies-skirts-at-lincoln-memorial-didn-t-violate-their-privacy-10.html#ixzz3FthFNoBi 
Follow us: @abc7news on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook

[Tennesseer]

From the link:

A Texas court recently threw out a law banning upskirt photos, stating the photos  are “inherently expressive” – like paintings, films, and books – and are protected by the First Amendment.

In Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court threw out a case against a man accused of taking upskirt photos of women on a Boston subway train, citing a loophole in the state’s recently enacted Peeping Tom Law stating that the law “does not apply to photographing… persons who are fully clothed.”

I  have to agree with the judge here.  What the guy did was creepy but is it a crime?   Random snapshots of of women wearing skirts while sitting on steps above where he was sitting.  To me it is no different than taking pictures of women on the upper steps while they wear slacks.

[Deleted]

For the record, I do understand the ruling. I just think it's BS.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

That's BS, billisonboard - what they're basically saying in your link, is that if a female is out in public, she can possibly expect to be upskirted" by someone taking photos, and it's something she should just accept and deal with.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2014 22:24:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

From the link:

A Texas court recently threw out a law banning upskirt photos, stating the photos  are “inherently expressive” – like paintings, films, and books – and are protected by the First Amendment.

In Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court threw out a case against a man accused of taking upskirt photos of women on a Boston subway train, citing a loophole in the state’s recently enacted Peeping Tom Law stating that the law “does not apply to photographing… persons who are fully clothed.”

I  have to agree with the judge here.  What the guy did was creepy but is it a crime?   Random snapshots of of women wearing skirts while sitting on steps above where he was sitting.  To me it is no different than taking pictures of women on the upper steps while they wear slacks.

Yeah... those are "head-scratchers" too.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2014 22:27:28 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

That's BS, billisonboard - what they're basically saying in your link, is that if a female is out in public, she can possibly expect to be upskirted" by someone taking photos, and it's something she should just accept and deal with.

Exactly.

The problem I have with the ruling is the idea that "if it could be seen publicly it's not protected". That's what the ruling boils down to...

So if someone laying down on the steps could look up and see up the skirt (and see whatever may be up there to see)... then it's fine to take a picture of it? Really?

This isn't people sitting with their knees apart, in mini-skirts, INTENTIONALLY flashing the world their goodies. This is people sitting normally expecting that their coverage is adequate.

[billisonboard]

Oct 11, 2014 22:27:28 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

That's BS, billisonboard - what they're basically saying in your link, is that if a female is out in public, she can possibly expect to be upskirted" by someone taking photos, and it's something she should just accept and deal with.

No. What they are actually saying is

There was absolutely no evidence that on the day of his arrest, the defendant engaged in behavior that could be described in any way as ‘upskirting’ (the taking of photographs up a woman’s skirt), as the judge made clear in her 3-1/2 page ruling," said court spokeswoman Leah Gurowitz in an e-mail to ABC7 News.

Read more: www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/judge-rules-man-who-took-photos-up-ladies-skirts-at-lincoln-memorial-didn-t-violate-their-privacy-10.html#ixzz3FthFNoBi 
Follow us: @abc7news on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook

[Deleted]

I'm the greatest advocate ever for "well, in public one shouldn't expect privacy"... but this goes beyond common sense.

One expects cameras mounted on poles in public. One expects people standing taking pictures at National monuments. One expects that they will exist in other people's memories and photographs when out in public... but one also expects that if they are dressed "modestly" and aren't flashing the world and everyone, that their parts and garments UNDER their clothes (that can't be seen THROUGH their clothes... anyway) are sufficiently expecting of privacy.

[billisonboard]

This case is based on a specific set of photographs. Without viewing that specific set of photographs, I am not sure how one replaces their judgement with that made be a person who did see that specific set of photographs. 

[billisonboard]

From the link:

A Texas court recently threw out a law banning upskirt photos, stating the photos  are “inherently expressive” – like paintings, films, and books – and are protected by the First Amendment.

...

Here is a link to a news article on the Texas case: www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/State-appeals-court-rules-upskirt-law-5763225.php?cmpid=twitter-premium&t=53c893b5408b7034ef

Interesting read.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

No, what you're saying is that you justify this, until the people participating in any voyeurism such as this, are found guilty of doing so.

Otherwise, it's no holds barred for said voyeurs to take photos of females (or even males) with up-skirting or "locker room photos", and the victim is basically helpless from pressing charges or having the perpetrator charged - is that your stance?

[billisonboard]

Oct 11, 2014 23:24:01 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

No, what you're saying is that you justify this, until the people participating in any voyeurism such as this, are found guilty of doing so.

Otherwise, it's no holds barred for said voyeurs to take photos of females (or even males) with up-skirting or "locker room photos", and the victim is basically helpless from pressing charges or having the perpetrator charged - is that your stance?

Is this to me?

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Yes.

[billisonboard]

Here is another discussion of the DC case:  www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202672907507/Upskirt-Photos-Case-Dropped-in-DC?mcode=1202619041376&curindex=2&slreturn=20140912004210

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I can't access that link without signing in or registering, so I'll pass.

[billisonboard]

Oct 11, 2014 23:41:05 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Yes.

Okay.

I have not seen the photographs in question so have no basis to judge "any voyeurism such as this", not knowing what "this" actually is.

A case that dealt with upskirting or locker room pictures would likely be dealt with differently.

[billisonboard]

Oct 11, 2014 23:58:21 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

I can't access that link without signing in or registering, so I'll pass.

Understand but it is weird that I have gotten there twice with no such requirement. Here is a sample of what it says:

McKenna said there was no evidence that Cleveland positioned himself or his camera in a way to photograph concealed areas of women’s bodies. She contrasted his situation to a 2007 case in Washington state in which the defendant “went to extraordinary lengths” to position himself to see up women’s skirts.

The judge also referenced famed New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham, who takes candid shots of women (and occasionally men) for weekly fashion features. In a footnote, McKenna wrote that although she was in "no way" equating what Cleveland allegedly did with Cunningham's "great work," the type of images Cleveland captured were similar to Cunningham's photos.



Read more: www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202672907507/Upskirt-Photos-Case-Dropped-in-DC#ixzz3Fu7sUaVK

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I get the same msg with that link - same screen as before - I have to register with linkedin to access that page.

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2014 0:15:31 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

I get the same msg with that link - same screen as before - I have to register with linkedin to access that page.

I get the "Register now" screen too... so it's not just because you are a Canadian Socialist nutjob...

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2014 0:07:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 11, 2014 23:58:21 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

I can't access that link without signing in or registering, so I'll pass.

Understand but it is weird that I have gotten there twice with no such requirement. Here is a sample of what it says:

McKenna said there was no evidence that Cleveland positioned himself or his camera in a way to photograph concealed areas of women’s bodies. She contrasted his situation to a 2007 case in Washington state in which the defendant “went to extraordinary lengths” to position himself to see up women’s skirts.

The judge also referenced famed New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham, who takes candid shots of women (and occasionally men) for weekly fashion features. In a footnote, McKenna wrote that although she was in "no way" equating what Cleveland allegedly did with Cunningham's "great work," the type of images Cleveland captured were similar to Cunningham's photos.



Read more: www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202672907507/Upskirt-Photos-Case-Dropped-in-DC#ixzz3Fu7sUaVK

BS. The photos he took are the evidence.

[billisonboard]

Oct 12, 2014 0:36:47 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 12, 2014 0:07:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Understand but it is weird that I have gotten there twice with no such requirement. Here is a sample of what it says:

McKenna said there was no evidence that Cleveland positioned himself or his camera in a way to photograph concealed areas of women’s bodies. She contrasted his situation to a 2007 case in Washington state in which the defendant “went to extraordinary lengths” to position himself to see up women’s skirts.

The judge also referenced famed New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham, who takes candid shots of women (and occasionally men) for weekly fashion features. In a footnote, McKenna wrote that although she was in "no way" equating what Cleveland allegedly did with Cunningham's "great work," the type of images Cleveland captured were similar to Cunningham's photos.



Read more: www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202672907507/Upskirt-Photos-Case-Dropped-in-DC#ixzz3Fu7sUaVK

BS. The photos he took are the evidence.

Have you seen the photographs?

[ZaireinHD]

there are a LOT of men that have little to very little self control. upskirt pictures is far better than the alternative. it gets worse on crowded subway trains.

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2014 3:57:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 12, 2014 0:36:47 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

BS. The photos he took are the evidence.

Have you seen the photographs?

Nope. Don't have to have seen them. He didn't get arrested for taking a picture of the Washington Monument, for crying out Christmas.

If nothing else, a cop or someone saw him pointing "his camera in a way to photograph concealed areas of women’s bodies". Ergo, the pictures exist (or at least they did, at one point in time... they may have been deleted/destroyed by now). Why do you think he got arrested in the first place?

ETA: and to be honest, I don't WANT to see them. I'm not a perve like he is.

[NoNamePerson]

Oct 12, 2014 0:03:53 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 11, 2014 23:41:05 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Yes.

Okay.

I have not seen the photographs in question so have no basis to judge "any voyeurism such as this", not knowing what "this" actually is.

A case that dealt with upskirting or locker room pictures would likely be dealt with differently.

Why? Maybe the person in a locker room is just taking pictures of the lockers and people got in the pictures. How about in the rest room? Maybe the person taking pictures is just taking pictures of toilets and people just got in the pictures.

The guy is probably sitting in a corner indulging while he looks at his pictures. And for some reason I have a gut feeling this guy will be in the news again.