- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,453
- Reaction score
- 3,844
- Location
- Louisville, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Apparently this just doesn't penetrate - there is no PRIVACY in a PUBLIC setting.
No nudity, no violation. Everything else is just indignant, whiny opinion and outrage.
WHAT???? How can upskirt photo taking NOT be an invasion of privacy?????
It is rude, but should only be illegal in some circumstances. There are some public places (stairs, balconies, when someone exist a low car) where anyone can see up skirts, so in those situations there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Most publicly available up skirt pictures only show up the skirt, you can't identify the person unless they have very unique underwear, in those cases there is no harm.
I remember being someplace that had a similar walkway. I glanced up, saw that it might be possible to see up a dress or skirt. After that it was head and eyes straight ahead. I would have so embarassed to be seen looking up.
When do people lose their pride and self-respect?
We're talking about the Communistwealth of Massachusetts, where Criminals are not only the most popular citizens (see Whitey Bulger), but elected to most State and Federal offices. Making criminals out of these people (as they should be) would create too much competition for the criminals currently in power.
Looking up and getting an accidental shot is completely different than scooting up underneath a lady's skirt to take a picture of her crotch and post it online under titles such as "crotch shots."
We're talking about the Communistwealth of Massachusetts, where Criminals are not only the most popular citizens (see Whitey Bulger), but elected to most State and Federal offices. Making criminals out of these people (as they should be) would create too much competition for the criminals currently in power.
I agree. But if you stare up, looking for that 'accidental shot', then you have crossed a line. To me, taking am up-skirt picture crosses the line, even more. I am not sure about whether or not it should be illegal, but there is no doubt in my mind about the morality.
District Attorney Dan Conley said prosecutors are hoping state lawmakers will change the wording of the statute by the end of this legislative session.
"What we have is not that the Supreme Judicial Court is saying this is OK," Conley said. "The statutory language just didn't quite fit the conduct."
In its ruling, the court said that other states, including New York and Florida, have passed laws specifically criminalizing upskirt photos, noting that women have an expectation of privacy under their clothing. Washington lawmakers closed a loophole in that state's voyeurism law a decade ago, after a similar ruling there.
Conley added that this conduct has become more and more prevalent, and he urged riders to be alert.
"This action is immoral and reprehensible; don't do it," he said.
Interesting slant on this, can always count on you for that.
I'd say it is odd for so liberal and nanny state a place as Messichusettes that is doesn't have a better consent for photography law. Not sure just how a law to stop upskirt can be written as many times 'upskirt' is in plain view. Perhaps it needs to say something about the photographing of people's undergarments without written consent is illegal.
As it stands now the law doesn't make upskirting illegal.
Now I don't know how popular Whitey was, certainly feared, and every state has had their own Whitey. As for which state has the most criminals in office, I don't think any state has a lock on that title. Louisiana has had it's fair share, and the VP under Nixon, ol' arch-conservative, Spiro was run out of Blair House for political racketeering back as county commissioner and then Governor of Maryland.
And damn sure making peepers criminals won't be competiting with politicians, they tend to show off their junk, not sneak pics of other people's privates...eace
who knows-maybe its the thrill of the hunt
he could buy a ballet magazine and see much better looking stuff under skirts
View attachment 67163022
Apparently this just doesn't penetrate - there is no PRIVACY in a PUBLIC setting.
No nudity, no violation. Everything else is just indignant, whiny opinion and outrage.
You likely have no one to protect from this, otherwise this would not be your position.
Tell you what....if you get a girlfriend someday. let me know so I can take a couple pictures for the internet.
Well if it is a hunt, maybe we should have "muff season" during the spring and summer when they all come out of hiding from beneath all the bulky winter clothes.
It seems that the ruling - as outrageous as the concept of it is - is correct as far as the letter of the law is concerned. It is not the ruling that is the problem, it is the lack of an applicable law that is.
I am sure the state legislature is gazing hard at this situation to get to the bottom of things to make sure that these cracks are covered. :2razz:
What is UNDER your clothing is private.
Really don't understand how this escapes you.
So you should get arrested for taking a picture of someone's socks? Those are under clothes (shoes).
As much as I'd like to disagree, I cannot. I'm really wanting to move out of Massachusetts. It's a horrible state to live in IMO.
Did you know that in Rhode Island, up-skirt photos ARE illegal? Leave it to backwards-ass Massachusetts to screw things up.
I'd say it is odd for so liberal and nanny state a place as Messichusettes that is doesn't have a better consent for photography law. Not sure just how a law to stop upskirt can be written as many times 'upskirt' is in plain view. Perhaps it needs to say something about the photographing of people's undergarments without written consent is illegal. As it stands now the law doesn't make upskirting illegal.
Now I don't know how popular Whitey was, certainly feared, and every state has had their own Whitey. As for which state has the most criminals in office, I don't think any state has a lock on that title. Louisiana has had it's fair share, and the VP under Nixon, ol' arch-conservative, Spiro was run out of Blair House for political racketeering back as county commissioner and then Governor of Maryland.
And damn sure making peepers criminals won't be competiting with politicians, they tend to show off their junk, not sneak pics of other people's privates...eace
Feet are not genitalia.
Nice try, 'tucky. Try contributing next time instead of acting like an emotional whinebag.
A LOT of people love Whitey Bulger.
Neither are panties.
I suspect they never met the man. Course Billy the Kid, Al Capone, and that Gambino guy and a group of fellas with nicknames like 'Lucky' or 'Bugsey' are popular in myth s and legends.
I'm more inclined to say MOST people feared or hated the above.eace
Powerful and compelling rebuttal to a contribution with two completely valid points, though admittedly phrased in such a way as to debase your position. I will remove the snark that you might perhaps be compelled to address them:
If you had a daughter or female significant other who was subjected to having her privacy attacked by someone taking pictures of her most private areas without her knowledge, would you be okay with it?
Would you be fine seeing them on the internet, knowing everyone else has access to these pictures?
If you are okay with these things, then I would be safe in doing so given the opportunity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?