High Court Rules That Upskirt Photos Are Legal In Massachusetts

[tabaqui]

It is not against the law to secretly take photographs up a woman’s skirt in Massachusetts, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday. The court dismissed charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested by Boston transit police for taking photos and videos up multiple women’s skirts or dresses on the subway.

Comments

[golden_bastet]

I haven't been able to completely catch up on this, and no way I agree; but can someone confirm whether it's a case that the law is written badly? Because if it is, I would think the judges' hands are tied. Legislative issue, not judicial (and to their credit, the Mass Legislature is moving on it).

Free speech? That's a different question and just. No.

[anolinde]

The judges sympathized with the notion that a woman should be able to have a reasonable expectation not to have secret photos taken up her skirt when she goes out in public, but ruled that current state law does not address that. Massachusetts’ “Peeping Tom” laws, as written, only protect women from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Since upskirt photos are taken of fully clothed women in public, they don’t count, according to the court.

It sounds like this was the case, and it was an unintentional loophole that they're on their way to fixing.

[rufinia]

The law was written badly, and the legislature fixed it yesterday. (I am a lawyer in Massachusetts, I have actually read the opinion, and it sucks, but the judges were stuck.)

[anolinde]

The bill to ban upskirt photos was just passed in the House and Senate, and is expected to be signed by the governor first thing tomorrow.

[tabaqui]

Excellent, excellent news.

[katie_g_lynn]

I wonder if this will do anything for paparazzi and celeb vag shots.

[anolinde]

This is just for Massachusetts, I think. I assume it would help celebrities in the state, but not elsewhere unless other states adopted similar laws.

[mrasaki]

imo Stand Your Ground laws should apply to this situation.

[elialshadowpine]

I would be totally behind this.

[howlin_wolf_66]

I don't get it. Upskirt pics surely violate the 'reasonable expectation of privacy'?! I think it's ENTIRELY reasonable not to expect some perv to take pictures under your clothing, when you step out of your door... *sigh*

[silver_apples]

I think this was an appeal focusing on holes in the Peeping Tom laws--whether or not it was a violation of privacy was not part of the case. I haven't had much luck getting more detailed information, so I don't know if he was convicted of other crimes connected to this case and this is just overturning one part of it, or if the entire case was built on the Peeping Tom laws and he's now free to go.

[howlin_wolf_66]

Thanks for the clarification. :-)

[maladaptive]

I've seen mixed feelings on it, legally. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. The end. No one is reaching into your clothes to get the shot so there is no violation to taking the shot of something passively available from an unusual angle.

I have not been surprised at all that the vast majority (certainly all the ones I've encountered) of the people espousing that belief have been men who don't wear skirts.

[world_dancer]

The judge didn't decide that upskirt photos are legal. He decided that the Peeping Tom law that people were trying to apply didn't apply.

Nowhere did he say it wasn't sexual harassment or some other offense. Just can't try the guy under a law designed to apply to nude/partially nude people.