LAWFUL TO VIDEOTAPE WOMEN'S PANTIES

ABC NEWS

[Illbay]

Texas. Or Utah.

[steve-b]

In other news, Bill Clinton is moving to Washington state.

[LetsRok]

but they fail to understand the obvious: Up a skirt is not a public place.

I agree with the judge on this one. What about down a women's shirt? Who hasn't taken a peek when some women bends over to pick something up and their breasts are exposed? If caught, the perp should be beaten to a pulp and their video equipment smashed. This could become a very expensive hobby.

[Skooz]

Agreed.

[WindMinstrel]

Exactly. If someone tries to look or videotape up my wife's (or daughter's) skirt, they will receive a thorough pounding. That's my job as husband/father.

Should such behavior be illegal? Of course. However, it isn't yet in that state. Laws should only be passed when there's a need, IMNHO. There's a demonstrable need now -- let the politicians earn their keep for a change. Hey, when they're passing valid laws like this they won't be able to raise taxes for a few days, right?

[WindMinstrel]

I think that's a pretty valid response to just about any post on FR. Maybe we can get JimRob to put that next to the disclaimer on every post?

[Delbert]

but they fail to understand the obvious: Up a skirt is pubic place.

[ikka]

Am I the only one who remembers the Benny Hill (I think) skit with the guy hanging around near a metal grill staircase on a ship?

He enjoys himself and calls a friend over, the friend smiles and takes his position.

The next person in a skirt to go up... is a man in a kilt! Oy!

[AdA$tra]

Sounds like pants are in order here.

[Desdemona]

Sounds like pants are in order here.

Or shorts under the skirt.

Or underwear with a message like "No Trespassing" or "Turn off the camera, you pervert."

[Bubba_Leroy]

the state's voyeurism law doesn't apply because the women were taped in a public place, such as a park or shopping mall, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy

This is too ludicrous for words. If he videotaped women walking around topless or nude, I would agree. If you show it in public then you can't reasonably expect for it to be private. But to rule that you have no expectation of privacy UNDER your clothes?

[AdA$tra]

Or shorts under the skirt.

...Or perhaps at least skirts long enough to hide the goods when climbing the stairs. Not that I am REALLY complaining here. If one does not want me to look, they might try and hide it at least a little.

[FreeTally]

But what if the woman is walking up stairs or is on a second level balcony - like in a mall? I used to work in a mall like this and innocently saw all sorts of things(some I wished I hadn't) - but didn't film it with a camera.

[Desdemona]

What, and hide the thighs?

Seriously, skirts can be too short - and even worse when you try to sit.

[13foxtrot]

I am amazed that so many people here on FR do not understand how our legal system works.

The court ruled that the existing statute does not apply to 'upskirt-ing'. Now it is up to the legislature to amend the statute - no big deal. That is how the system is designed to work.

However, it would be nice if this court would apply the same judical restraint when conservative issues come before it.

[IronJack]

I've said it before. If I ever caught any slavering twit filming my wife's silkies, his next project would be his own colonoscopy.