The judge agreed with the Prosecutor, and stated "...that while the prosecution’s “proposition is eminently reasonable,” the current writing of the law that Robertson was charged under does not cover that particular circumstance."
The law, as written, has 5 criteria:
That the defendant willfully photographed, videotaped, or electronically surveilled; the subject was another person who was nude or partially nude; the defendant did so with the intent to secretly conduct or hide his photographing activity; the defendant conducted such activity when the other person was in a place and circumstance where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being “so photographed”; and the defendant did so without the other person’s knowledge or consent.
The judge is correct in this matter, and a different ruling would be judicial activism, which we all protest, methinks. They are currently advocating rewriting the law, or adding another to cover these circumstances.
> The judge is correct in this matter, and a different ruling would be judicial activism, which we all protest, methinks. They are currently advocating rewriting the law, or adding another to cover these circumstances.
Well attorneys are wordsmiths and skilled liars (j/k well maybe not sometimes...: ) yeah I can see what you are saying if you interpret the law as stated. I would have thought a personl would have some expectation of privacy if it took a man lying underneath her or a camera aimed up at her genials to take a picture of it though...; )
Then the court should order the Massachusetts legislature to pass a law, and further order the Governor to sign it. There's precedence: That's how they got Homo Marriage in MA. That and Romney liked the idea, and didn't need to be ordered.