Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RightGeek
but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas, the court said.

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.

25 posted on 03/05/2014 5:38:04 PM PST by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Teacher317; Revolting cat!; Pollster1

Such laws would discriminate against voyeurs.


44 posted on 03/06/2014 12:33:22 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The Texas judge's decision was to pave the way for same sex divorce for two Massachusetts women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson