Posted on 03/05/2014 5:07:36 PM PST by RightGeek
Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that a man accused of secretly snapping photos up a woman’s skirt on an MBTA train did not break the law.
[snip]
So-called Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas, the court said. The SJC ruling went on to suggest that the act in this case should be illegal, noting other states including New York and Florida have explicit laws criminalizing public upskirting.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.cbslocal.com ...
You might remember that Pottersville was hopping, with people spending disposable income on entertainment, while in Bedford Falls, “half the town was thrown out of work” when the old machine works shut down and the only nightlife is Martini’s bar.
Second idea: Women’s paties with a message on the crotch that say: YOU DON”T HAVE A CHANCE TO GET IN HERE
Mr. Bumble had little use for judicial reasoning. In Dickens’ Oliver Twist, he put it rather bluntly: “’If the law supposes that’, said Mr. Bumble, ‘the law is a ass — a idiot.’”
Back when America was really America, the male passengers on the train would have taken this pervert photographer off the train and physically broken his neck. And the whole town would cheer.
They are very clearly telling the state legislature to change the wording of this law. No big deal. It's done this way in every state's High Court, virtually every month of every year.
And really, don't we prefer that the Courts apply the laws as written, and not invoke magical Judiciary Thinking and change the wording, meaning, and intent of properly-created Legislative acts? In this case, they are applying the law as written (so one dopey perv does get a pass... the price to be paid)... and telling the state legislature to change it ASAP so that the mass of other dopey pervs that will start doing more of this (now that it is being sensationalized in the media) will be able to be properly punished and innocent citizens can again be protected from such intrusions.
Firstly.... TWENTY?!? Really?!? That can't be the going rate... can it? Seriously?? That's gotta be for bottom-dwellers or something.
(Who are you doing business with out there? LOL Kidding!!!)
Secondly, I think it's the taking without permission, or doing the forbidden, that is a large part of the motivation and thrill for them. When it's allowed, it's probably not as fun.
For them: Free and offensive > paying and voluntary
because you can’t post a prostitute on the internet?
Heh...I watch 1975 TV shows....
Back in the old days some guys put mirrors on their shoes.
So what if she was conceal carrying? What about nuisance or indecent behaviors laws.
Try that with a plain cloth cop and see if that guy would have gotten away.
I respectfully disagree. We all complain all the time when judges engage in "judicial activism" by effectively overruling legislative enactments by re-writing the law. These judges should be commended for interpreting the law as plainly written, rather than trying to re-write the law to promote a social agenda. If the Mass legislature disagrees with the court's reading of the law, then it can pass remedial legislation. I really hope it does; regardless, the court has no business re-writing a law that the legislature should fix.
“I am not sure of the solution, but this is (at least for now) not a problem that government can solve.”
In better days the cure would have been a knuckle sandwich or a night stick over the head.
I thought I was the only one who remembered such advanced techniques. Now, I suppose they’ll be putting Google Glasses on their shoes.
I’m with you on this one, the guy’s a creep no doubt about it but he didn’t break the law. I thought we here in FreeRepublic believed in the strict interpretation of the law. It’s not Massachusetts’ fault, it’s not the judges’ fault it’s the fault of the lawmakers who drew up sloppy legislation.
The solution is simple, amend the legislation to cover this activity. In the meantime the courts will, rightly, uphold the law as written.
Write a better law.
Next.
Roger that, he would have been launched from the train by the first ten men to find out about it.
I’d really need to see some pictures before I make a comment.
“It’s clear that the court regrets having to rule the way that they did, but the law does not permit them to rule otherwise.”
I wish they would rule that way with the gun laws!
In France...
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.