Posted on 11/08/2013 7:44:19 AM PST by sevinufnine
A man argued in Supreme Court this week that it is his Constitutional right to take pictures underneath the skirts of unsuspecting women on the subway.
Michael Robertson, 31, from Andover, Boston, said in Massachusetts Supreme Court on Monday that his First Amendment freedom of speech rights means he was not breaking the law when he was arrested in 2010 for allegedly photographing an undercover cop and another passenger.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
She argued the laws are in place to protect people from 'Peeping Toms' and apply to spying on people who are nude or partially nude in a place where they would usually expect privacy, like in their home.
She also argued he could not be guilty of photographing a 'partially nude' person because the women in the photos were fully clothed, and their genitalia was covered by underwear, the Eagle Tribune reports.
'What he saw was in plain sight. He did not place his camera directly up a women’s skirt. He saw what was in front of him,' she argued.
Only the NSA and the TSA have that right...
Just when I thought the Constitution couldn’t be twisted and abused any more than it already has......
OK I have a “Constitutional””Right” to BUST this SOB In the Head and KICK him in the NUTS too!
I wonder...since this perv as a female attorney...does she wear a skirt to court? If so I’d LOVE for the prosecuting attorney to walk over and take a photo up her skirt just to see her reaction. It would be so totally worth it!
“If a clothed person reveals a body part whether it was intentional or unintentional, he or she cannot expect privacy.’
this must be the Bill Clinton clause of the Constitution s/
“We are living in the age of insanity.” - George Putnam
How nice. If he has the right to photograph under women's skirts without their consent, then women have a right to punch him in the face and break his camera. Self-defense.
> Just when I thought the Constitution couldn’t be twisted and abused any more than it already has......
But try to invoke its protections on your freedom of speech, religion / assembly, right to bear arms , rights to privacy / unlawful seaches and you’re a terrorist.
Meanwhile they protect pedophiles and sexual deviants when they should be shot. You how they protect thir own kind; “like” protecting “like”.
I think ObamaCare covers that - “You have no expectation of privacy”.
(You how they protect thir own kind; “like” protecting “like”.)
Yup, that’s exactly how it appears to be. Sickening isn’t it?
wonder...since this perv as a female attorney...does she wear a skirt to court? If so I’d LOVE for the prosecuting attorney to walk over and take a photo up her skirt just to see her reaction. It would be so totally worth
The Left wouldn’t approve unless it was a transgender boy then they’d want to consfiscate the “evidence” for their viewing pleasure later...: )
Cops seem to have the right to look at the interior of your intestines looking for drugs then charge $6,000 for doing it.
(Cops seem to have the right to look at the interior of your intestines looking for drugs then charge $6,000 for doing it.)
wouldn’t feeding the suspect a few Exlax and simply waiting a few hours be cheaper, and less traumatic, for all involved?
> What he saw was in plain sight. He did not place his camera directly up a women’s skirt. He saw what was in front of him,’ she argued.
So in that same vein of thinking I can use an Xray nachine to scan you without your consent.
She’s insane. The guy had to purchase additional equipment that he installed covertly so it couldn’t be detected which gave him the ability to see things that were NOT in plain sight! And then he had walk to up and position himself in very close proximity to her to view her concealed body parts / covered sexual organs with the intent of capturing footage satisfying a sexual urge! HAS CRITICAL THINKING FLOWN OUT THE WINDOW THIS FAR OR IS OUR POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM SO CORRUPT THAT THEY NO LONGER MAKE DECISIONS WITH SOUND JUDGMENT?! The judge should be disbarred if he’s an attorney and his financial records examined to see if he has been bribed in the past.
Checking the Federalist Paper now.
^ thought the case had already been ruled in the perv’s favor. The attorney should be disbarred for even offering these arguments. She is clearly lacking in sound judgment.
> Cops seem to have the right to look at the interior of your intestines looking for drugs then charge $6,000 for doing it.
They need to be fired too .Official oppression and charging a person of a crime with false grounds or lack of proper probable cause seems to have ramped up across the nation under 0’s watch. I’m guessing they figure if he can do it why not them.
I think it’s one o’ them “penumbra” thingies. Sure wish I was smart like a lawyer.
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.