# Massachusetts court says 'upskirt' photos are legal



## Chelydra (Mar 5, 2014)

> (CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing -- a practice known as "upskirting" -- prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.
> 
> *The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Zaru (Mar 5, 2014)

Law's probably gonna get changed/appended then.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 5, 2014)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2014)

How sad do you have to be to do that?


----------



## kazuri (Mar 5, 2014)

Hmm, if its illegal in some place to expose your underwear, should it be illegal for women to sit with their legs open, or even illegal to expose their underwear because a breeze blew up their skirt, etc?


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 5, 2014)

Chelydra said:


>



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwyEEuJeLkY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## LesExit (Mar 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> How sad do you have to be to do that?


My question 

why even put effort into that? Can't you watch porn or something o____o?


----------



## ez (Mar 5, 2014)

the judge even looks like a troll


----------



## Gunners (Mar 5, 2014)

The decision makes sense, and I don't know why people are making a fuss about it *now*. 

1) The law the prosecution more than likely exists to protect women from unscrupulous lovers (or individuals) getting nude shots under a false pretence of privacy; the expectation for privacy diminishes in public settings. 

2) People take snap shots of celebrities all of the time yet no one thought to question the legality of it, but since it concerns averages Joes it is suddenly a legal issue? Consistency please.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 5, 2014)

LesExit said:


> My question
> 
> why even put effort into that? Can't you watch porn or something o____o?



Some people get a thrill out of doing it themselves. Which thanks to them we can watch upskirt movies on the internet. Someone has to do it.


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 5, 2014)

LesExit said:


> why even put effort into that? Can't you watch porn or something o____o?



obviously it excites them more than simply watching porn, or the person they want is not a porn star so its the closest they can get


----------



## ninjaneko (Mar 5, 2014)

Is...no one disgusted by this? Because...I think that's somewhere in the realm of the appropriate reaction here.

People should be able to allowed their modesty and consent. :/


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 5, 2014)

ninjaneko said:


> Is...no one disgusted by this? Because...I think that's somewhere in the realm of the appropriate reaction here.
> 
> People should be able to allowed their modesty and consent. :/




Noble Keyboard warrior. Lead us into battle so thou shall spite at thy evil doers.


----------



## buff cat (Mar 6, 2014)

Note to self: never go to MA while wearing a skirt or dress. 

But seriously:


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 6, 2014)

Ugh.

This was a pretty bad ruling, I get that their are technicalities involved, but it sets a horrible precedent.


----------



## ninjaneko (Mar 6, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Noble Keyboard warrior. Lead us into battle so thou shall spite at thy evil doers.


Isn't getting an emotional reaction out of posters exactly what half the threads in the Cafe are for? Oh how many articles are for posted the ensuing shock and/or lulz... I thought this was common knowledge.


----------



## Jon Moxley (Mar 6, 2014)

so basically you're allowed to perv?

Let me go get my cam .


----------



## Nikushimi (Mar 6, 2014)

> Police observed him point a cell phone video camera up the dress of a female officer, court documents state.



I'm not sure whether to applaud his audacity or condemn his stupidity. 

I dunno.

I think it was a fair ruling; this kind of activity doesn't really seem criminal so much as it is just rude, lewd, and generally socially reprehensible.

It's not really capturing nudity or anything, though...just a different angle/perspective that happens to be more revealing, which is sorta the nature of the garment itself. And they just happen to be going out of their way to photograph it like that. Which, again, isn't really criminal even if it is deplorable.

Seems like if it's a problem for you, don't wear clothes that people can exploit like this (although, honestly, people will exploit just about anything, no matter what you wear/do, if they really want to badly enough). If you know the risk of this happening exists and you still wear such clothing...then yeah, shut up; these people only care about your drawers, not your feelings.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Mar 6, 2014)

I hope that dude is doing that someday and he gets home and realizes he actually photographed a trannie and just has dick pics on his phone.


----------



## Jon Moxley (Mar 6, 2014)

PikaCheeka said:


> I hope that dude is doing that someday and he gets home and realizes he actually photographed a trannie and just has dick pics on his phone.



with how some trannies actually look like women, it wouldn't be surprising at all.

Funny ..........shit hell yeah it would be funny


----------



## wibisana (Mar 6, 2014)

wow is it legal took someone else pic without their permission?
moreover up-skirt photo?


----------



## Magic (Mar 6, 2014)

Glad I live in this state


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 6, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> How sad do you have to be to do that?



Maybe for this:


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Mar 6, 2014)

Japan approves.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 6, 2014)

A wise man once told me that if upskirts are legal and common, women will no longer wear skirts in public. Long ago men once wore skirts, but women could not control themselves from peeping at our muscular thighs and tufts of spongy moss hair. Now men wear long pants. Women lost out the privilege of marveling at our legs because they could not control their lust. Must we too lose out on the privilege of seeing women in skirts?

Is that a risk you're all willing to take?


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 6, 2014)

In my honest opinion its a nasty ruling. I don't care if anybody agrees with me or not or call me Noble Keyboard warrior for that matter.

But it also true that woman need to wear clothes that people can't exploit like this. Cause there are always going to be people like that. Though that doesn't make this  a good ruling.

That's like saying hey you kept your door open at night. That's why the thief stole from you.So its not thief's fault & in case like this the thief won't be convicted.


----------



## TheSweetFleshofDeath (Mar 6, 2014)

It is a good ruling.  It's not the Supreme's Courts job to make laws.  It's their job to interpret the laws correctly.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Mar 6, 2014)

What a terrible rule. Absolutely pathetic. This shit is going to blow up in thier face big time. Calling it now.


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 6, 2014)

This is a fucked up scenario. On one hand, it is a grim act of behavior that seems like the law should protect potential victims from. It seems no different from someone pulling a woman's shirt up or down to get breast shots. 

However, it is most definitely different if the woman is standing and from a specific visual point of view, they are leaving their parts exposed to sight (once again from a specific point of view.)

I can't say that I'm half and half on the situation, because I am most certainly not.. But I can understand the ruling, but I don't like it. I would think they could put a clause in somewhere that states if a woman is wearing a dress (which has been socially acceptable for a couple of thousand years) that it should be illegal to attempt to gain an accessible view to peer underneath of the dress within the limit of typically normal circumstances.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Mar 6, 2014)

Yet another reason Massachusetts sucks.

That and John Kerry.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 6, 2014)

Ninja Shadow Warrior said:


> This is a fucked up scenario. On one hand, it is a grim act of behavior that seems like the law should protect potential victims from. It seems no different from someone pulling a woman's shirt up or down to get breast shots.
> 
> However, it is most definitely different if the woman is standing and from a specific visual point of view, they are leaving their parts exposed to sight (once again from a specific point of view.)
> 
> *I can't say that I'm half and half on the situation, because I am most certainly not.. But I can understand the ruling, but I don't like it. I would think they could put a clause in somewhere that states if a woman is wearing a dress (which has been socially acceptable for a couple of thousand years) that it should be illegal to attempt to gain an accessible view to peer underneath of the dress within the limit of typically normal circumstances*.



Do you want to clarify what you are trying to say here? Cause it seems like you are saying if a woman wear less conservative dress then pervertism is allowed.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Mar 6, 2014)

> (CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing -- a practice known as "upskirting" -- prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.



I don't even ...

Edit:

[YOUTUBE]sJUlTg3mfTo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 6, 2014)

Sherlōck said:


> Do you want to clarify what you are trying to say here? Cause it seems like you are saying if a woman wear less conservative dress then pervertism is allowed.



I think a less conservative dress would still apply. If a person has to position themselves or a device in a lower elevation with the sole purpose of capturing a view or picture/video of the body hidden within the garment, it would fall under the same circumstance.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 6, 2014)

Maybe its just me but I am not understanding your point. Anyway whatever.


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 6, 2014)

It is probably just you.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Mar 6, 2014)

Ninja Shadow Warrior said:


> I think a less conservative dress would still apply. If a person has to position themselves or a device in a lower elevation with the sole purpose of capturing a view or picture/video of the body hidden within the garment, it would fall under the same circumstance.



What you’re proposing is like what rape victims are told. They shouldn’t have been wearing ‘that’ particular kind of revealing dress when did. Yes, it was their fault and not the man. A woman wearing a knee length skirt is harmless. Some loser taking photos up a skirt is not. So why then should those in the wrong be accommodated too?


----------



## Gunners (Mar 6, 2014)

Again I must ask, where was all of this outrage when celebrities were having compromising photos taken of them?


----------



## Tony Lou (Mar 6, 2014)




----------



## SLB (Mar 6, 2014)

That's just wonderful...


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 6, 2014)

MbS said:


> What you?re proposing is like what rape victims are told. They shouldn?t have been wearing ?that? particular kind of revealing dress when did. Yes, it was their fault and not the man. A woman wearing a knee length skirt is harmless. Some loser taking photos up a skirt is not. So why then should those in the wrong be accommodated too?



That is the polar opposite as to what I was saying. 

What I said was to protect the dress/skirt wearer.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 6, 2014)

The problem is not with the ruling, but with the law. 
The law didn't cover up skirt pictures.... so change the law. 

problem solved.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 6, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> The problem is not with the ruling, but with the law.
> The law didn't cover up skirt pictures.... so change the law.
> 
> problem solved.



Agreed.  I think people are wanting the judges to do more than they are legally allowed to do.


----------



## TheSweetFleshofDeath (Mar 6, 2014)

> Do you want to clarify what you are trying to say here? Cause it seems like you are saying if a woman wear less conservative dress then pervertism is allowed.



He's saying there should be clauses based on the length of the skirt, and that longer skirts should provide greater degrees of legal protection/rights.  For instance if a girl were to wear a miniskirt she would have less rights than someone wearing an A-line skirt due to the ease at which one could view her panties comparatively.


----------



## Wilykat (Mar 6, 2014)

Time to pollute the area with traps. Hire many transvettes that looks like they'd make the centerfold of playboy and have them wear short skirts and no underwear.

Many voyeurs would go mad and lose sanity at discovering what appeared to be hot looking ladies have penis and balls.


----------



## kazuri (Mar 6, 2014)

In a few decades it will be necessary to have laws protecting camera angles like this, or else we cant have little robot drones running around for us.



> Time to pollute the area with traps. Hire many transvettes that looks like they'd make the centerfold of playboy and have them wear short skirts and no underwear.
> 
> Many voyeurs would go mad and lose sanity at discovering what appeared to be hot looking ladies have penis and balls.



So you think its ok to upskirt the dudes but not the women?


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 6, 2014)

TheSweetFleshofDeath said:


> He's saying there should be clauses based on the length of the skirt, and that longer skirts should provide greater degrees of legal protection/rights.  For instance if a girl were to wear a miniskirt she would have less rights than someone wearing an A-line skirt due to the ease at which one could view her panties comparatively.



No. That is not what I said. 






I'm saying there should be a clause on the lack of grounds pertaining to right to privacy. 

If you have to bend down to get nice and low to get a good upskirt/dress shot, or if you have to lower your recording/picture taking device in a typically non common way in order to capture such things, the person doing the lewd action should be held responsible by the law. 

As long as there are dresses and skirts, accidents will happen, but if someone has to go out of their way to get under that said garment, they should be held responsible.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 7, 2014)

And in less than 24 hours they ban it


----------



## Scila9 (Mar 7, 2014)

> The act would be made a misdemeanor.



Good. Honestly, what was the court thinking? No punishment for this kind of act would only encourage the pervs to do it.


----------



## Ninja Shadow Warrior (Mar 7, 2014)

Ha, they banned it. Good shit. Well done Gov'na.


----------



## CrazyAries (Mar 7, 2014)

> "In sum, we interpret the phrase, 'a person who is ... partially nude' in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," the high court ruled.
> 
> The ruling that state law "does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA."
> 
> Prosecutors had argued that the current statute, which prohibits secretly photographing or videotaping a person who is "nude or partially nude," includes upskirting, according to documents.



This reminds me of a case where a voyeur essentially got away with placing a camera in a couple's bedroom.  It shows how slow some governments are to address realities of technological advances.  They are often decades behind.  



Gunners said:


> The decision makes sense, and I don't know why people are making a fuss about it *now*.
> 
> 1) The law the prosecution more than likely exists to protect women from unscrupulous lovers (or individuals) getting nude shots under a false pretence of privacy; the expectation for privacy diminishes in public settings.
> 
> 2) People take snap shots of celebrities all of the time yet no one thought to question the legality of it, but since it concerns averages Joes it is suddenly a legal issue? Consistency please.





Gunners said:


> Again I must ask, where was all of this outrage when celebrities were having compromising photos taken of them?



I assure you there is outrage, but most of it is directed to the existence of the paparazzi in the first place.  Also, there are some important differences between the crotch shots of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton and the upskirt photos taken by relatively unknown perverts.  The celebrity photographs were taken of girls who knew full well they would be photographed yet chose not to wear underwear and get up of vehicles in a such a way that their vags would be seen.  I still hate the fact that photographers were there, but even if they weren't others nearby would have seen that anyway.  So they compromised their own privacy.  The type of pervert mentioned in this article had to go out of his way and invade the space of each woman who was upskirted.  



Ninja Shadow Warrior said:


> This is a fucked up scenario. On one hand, it is a grim act of behavior that seems like the law should protect potential victims from. It seems no different from someone pulling a woman's shirt up or down to get breast shots.
> 
> However, it is most definitely different if the woman is standing and from a specific visual point of view, they are leaving their parts exposed to sight (once again from a specific point of view.)
> 
> I can't say that I'm half and half on the situation, because I am most certainly not.. But I can understand the ruling, but I don't like it. I would think they could put a clause in somewhere that states if a woman is wearing a dress (which has been socially acceptable for a couple of thousand years) that it should be illegal to attempt to gain an accessible view to peer underneath of the dress within the limit of typically normal circumstances.



FWIW, I clearly understood your point the first time.  It doesn't seem that the judge took the ruling lightly at all, but the Massachusetts laws sadly did not address an issue like this before now.  There need to be new laws addressing this type of issue and the perverts doing this should be held accountable, particularly because there is a chance that they could be more aggressive in the future.



Chelydra said:


> And in less than 24 hours they ban it



My first though is this is good, but I hope this law won't punish someone who accidentally takes a picture with some woman's underwear exposed.  For example, say a guy is taking a snapshot of his friends in a public place and there happens to be a woman nearby who has on a short skirt.  He didn't see her and didn't mean to take a picture of her exposed.  It was an accident.


----------

