Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 21:38:37 GMT -5
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.comYouTube version of video of news segment from linked article.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 21:39:01 GMT -5
Wait... what?
a FEMALE judge rules that a woman doesn't have an "expectation of privacy" under her skirt?
|
|
ZaireinHD
Senior Associate
Joined: Mar 4, 2011 22:14:27 GMT -5
Posts: 12,407
|
Post by ZaireinHD on Oct 11, 2014 21:40:25 GMT -5
yea the upskirt case was considered legal in New York I think late last year!
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,461
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Oct 11, 2014 21:47:03 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Mar 4, 2011 22:14:27 GMT -5
Posts: 12,407
|
Post by ZaireinHD on Oct 11, 2014 21:49:37 GMT -5
not his pants.....his Kilt...
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Oct 11, 2014 22:13:51 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 11, 2014 22:21:56 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 11, 2014 22:24:45 GMT -5
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
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 22:27:15 GMT -5
For the record, I do understand the ruling. I just think it's BS.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Oct 11, 2014 22:27:28 GMT -5
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
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 22:29:57 GMT -5
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
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 22:34:34 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 11, 2014 22:35:37 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 22:39:29 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 11, 2014 22:58:50 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 11, 2014 23:22:08 GMT -5
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Oct 11, 2014 23:24:01 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 11, 2014 23:28:35 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Oct 11, 2014 23:41:05 GMT -5
Yes.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 11, 2014 23:47:53 GMT -5
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Oct 11, 2014 23:58:21 GMT -5
I can't access that link without signing in or registering, so I'll pass.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 12, 2014 0:03:53 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 12, 2014 0:07:51 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Oct 12, 2014 0:15:31 GMT -5
I get the same msg with that link - same screen as before - I have to register with linkedin to access that page.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2014 0:35:34 GMT -5
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
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2014 0:36:47 GMT -5
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
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,514
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 12, 2014 3:57:59 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Mar 4, 2011 22:14:27 GMT -5
Posts: 12,407
|
Post by ZaireinHD on Oct 12, 2014 5:07:37 GMT -5
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
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:22:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2014 5:17:53 GMT -5
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
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,752
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Oct 12, 2014 7:39:35 GMT -5
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.
|
|