Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,781
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Oct 12, 2014 7:51:36 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. Just like Uncle Toms helped keep blacks down so do women keep other women down from time to time.
I find her logic faulty because as women we have always had the expectation of people not looking up our skirts or dresses in public unless we sat in such a way to expose ourselves.
This guy and other men are breaking the social contract for their own titillation. If it is legal by current statutes, then new ones need to be created so it is not.
I wonder what would happen if cameras were installed in a public urinal and pics of men's crotches and generally private areas were used by an individual. Just because one is in a public space does not mean all expectations of privacy should go to zero.
Bad ruling. But I'm not a lawyer either, so not sure legally if this is what needed to happen for now or not.
|
|
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 7:57:08 GMT -5
Does PB have "auto correct" features built in? MY post keeps getting changed. And no I am not posting from a pad/mobile device.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,513
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 12, 2014 8:00:10 GMT -5
... 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. He got arrested because a police officer felt he had committed a crime. He was initially prosecuted because a prosecutor felt a crime was committed. A judge threw out evidence based on an interpretation of the law after seeing the photographs and hearing testimony. There are various reports available to us as to what took place with the photographing and concerning the photographs themselves. Sight unseen and not hearing first hand the evidence, I am not appalled by this ruling. There is the potential that, seeing the pictures, I might react with a "How could she not consider these 'upskirting'?" and thus allow the prosecution to go forward. Absent that first hand knowledge, I accept her judgement that police and prosecutors were a little overzealous in this particular case (because I feel they are fully capable of being so at times).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,513
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 12, 2014 8:10:54 GMT -5
... unless we sat in such a way to expose ourselves. ... As I read on this case, it appears to me that this is the critical issue. The judge ruled that none of the photographs taken were of anything not publicly exposed.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,513
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 12, 2014 8:18:33 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. ... Why? There is a "reasonable expectation of privacy"in locker rooms and toilets.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 12, 2014 8:28:57 GMT -5
Does PB have "auto correct" features built in? MY post keeps getting changed. And no I am not posting from a pad/mobile device. If you'll let me know what's getting changed, I'll try to help you figure out why. There are only a few things that are auto-changed.
|
|
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 8:34:05 GMT -5
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. ... Why? There is a "reasonable expectation of privacy"in locker rooms and toilets. Then why are the open urinals in the men's room? That doesn't seem to much like expectation of privacy to me.
|
|
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 12, 2014 8:38:59 GMT -5
Why? There is a "reasonable expectation of privacy"in locker rooms and toilets. Then why are the open urinals in the men's room? That doesn't seem to much like expectation of privacy to me. I'm sure once guys start taking pictures of each other in the public restrooms, that'll change. (There's already a problem in some schools of students taking pics in the locker rooms.)
|
|
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 8:39:09 GMT -5
mmhmm I sent you a PM. Didn't want to get into it in this thread since totally OT. Thanks
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 12, 2014 8:43:04 GMT -5
mmhmm I sent you a PM. Didn't want to get into it in this thread since totally OT. Thanks No problem. I've answered, NNP.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,513
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 12, 2014 8:59:33 GMT -5
Why? There is a "reasonable expectation of privacy"in locker rooms and toilets. Then why are the open urinals in the men's room? That doesn't seem to much like expectation of privacy to me. I am not aware if there have been any court cases in which the question of mandatory visual dividers in public restrooms has been addressed. The key word is "reasonable". If you flip it out there at an open urinal, you should understand that it might get looked at. It is reasonable, however, to expect it to not be photographed. If you step into a stall, close and lock the door, it is reasonable that no one is looking over the top nor taking pictures with a hidden camera.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 12, 2014 13:52:01 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 12, 2014 14:13:25 GMT -5
I bet you say that to all the girls.
|
|