Posted on 08/10/2005 8:44:23 AM PDT by george wythe
The attorney for a Virginia man told a Cumberland County judge Tuesday that, though his client acted in bad taste when he took a picture up a woman's skirt, he wasn't doing anything illegal.
"I have no doubt that what (Robert G.) Sullivan did was highly offensive. ...
"It was stupid, it was immoral, it was insulting — it just wasn't criminal under the invasion of privacy law," John "Jay" Abom argued in the non-jury trial before Judge Edgar Bayley.
[snip]
The woman's friend, who was working at a restaurant in Capital City Mall's food court at the time, told police she saw a man stick the phone up under the victim's skirt.
The victim told police she was wearing thong underwear and felt exposed and victimized by the act.
[snip]
Abom compares the case to the similar ones in Washington, Virginia and Minnesota where charges were dismissed because state privacy laws didn't address so-called "up-skirting" at the time the incidents occurred.
He says some states, such as California, Minnesota and Louisiana, now have laws that specifically address the act.
(Excerpt) Read more at cumberlink.com ...
Wearing the feminine equivalent of a jock strap DOES invite trouble....however, this guy is just a plain old scumbag for taking the picture....put him and her boyfriend in a locked room for 10 minutes....
He's right - And he's right.
She may have been victimized by the creep, but she had a hand in exposing herself by her decision to wear anal floss for underwear.
Because the right to privacy allows you to kill your unborn child, but doesn't protect you from others violating your privacy.
Which makes oh-so-much sense.
You seem to be describing the difference between looking and touching. Both are offensive and invading, but looking is legal and touching is a crime.
Please post the evidence!
So she wouldn't have felt "exposed and victimized" if she'd been wearing substantial cotton briefs? Weird.
But I don't see how taking a picture up someone's skirt could NOT be "invasion of privacy," no matter what she had on.
Have to "love" the activist judge who said that the stolen Tommy Lee/Pamela Anderson sex video was releaseable because of the trial and their public figure status (made the video "newsworthy").
You can take a picture of someone out in public with no expectation of privacy on public property. Don't even need to get a relase from the subject.
Photographer Diane Arbus said something about how the riskiest thing you could do is go out in public where any stranger can take your picture.
If thong underwear is under her skirt and not showing in any way - there's nothing wrong with that.
Similarily if a guy wants to wear just a jock strap under his trousers how would anyone know?
....
That's it. From now on, I live here. I'll have all of my food delivered by Peapod. I will usurp the throne of some small but wealthy country from my computer, and use their money to pay for it all.
You raise good points, so the judge will have to decide whether the current law applies.
Perhaps you should consider other scenarios to anticipate the judge's ruling.
Is it illegal to take a picture of a woman from the bottom of an escalator or a staircase?
Is it illegal to take a picture of a woman on a windy day when her skirt is lifted for a second?
Is it illegal to take a picture of a woman getting out of a car when her skirt pulls up for a brief moment?
Exactly! It doesn't matter WHAT your undies are (or aren't for that matter). It's the action of the picture takee that is criminal.
It may not be legal for the woman's father, brother, or husband to beat you to death, but he might do that anyway too.
Well, it either is, or it isn't, depending on exactly what the law says, and how the judge decides it applies.
All of which is quite independent of the style of the woman's underwear.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. My son and I can stand back and look at the hotties walking by and try to guess if they have on granny panties, thongs or are going commando. We cannot (or certainly should not be allowed to) go look up their pants leg or skirt to determine if we are correct.
Eeew. Could you and your son please stay off my street? I'll call the Sheriff.
The action is distateful but not criminal. And is it more criminal to take a photo than to merely stare from a bench near the escalator?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.