Skip to comments.
Filming Up Women's Skirts Is Legal In Washington
kansascitychannel ^
Posted on 09/19/2002 2:24:51 PM PDT by chance33_98
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: paulklenk
Sounds like a court that is unable to think outside the box. A very dumb interpretation of that law, IMO.Judges (at least the good ones) don't write the law, they interpret it. You would have to carefully read the statute and it's legislative history in order to have an informed opinion as to whether the Court's interpretation was "dumb".
The last thing I want is an a court of appeals to "think out of the box." I want them strictly confined to the laws and the Constitution as written, and not to issue opinions that seem right according to their own feelings or prejudices.
To: chance33_98
All rights aside, if I caught anyone doing that, even if I did not personally know the victim, I would take his camera and use it to give him a complete colon exam.
To: Little Bush
They should be hung! (haha)Now, I find that quite odd.
A poster by the name of "Little Bush" stating that men should be hung!
To: San Jacinto
The last thing I want is an a court of appeals to "think out of the box." Thank you for your voice of sanity. It's entirely possible, strange as it may seem, that this decision is correct. If, as I suspect, it is correct there's an obvious message to the State Legislature. Meantime, Wondevixen's roll of coins might be useful.
To: paulklenk
"It is certainly reasonable to expect that one will not be subject to cameras looking under one's skirts." If a female is wearing a skirt, she should have NO expectation of privacy if there are innocent ways of having other people's eyes positioned directly below her - such as on an unenclosed flight of stairs, for example. If she is next to the end of the stair treads, anyone on the flight below her can look all the way up to Toledo.
Non-enclosed flights of stairs are fave locales for the perverts who shoot these "upskirt" stills and movies. Most skirt-wearing women probably don't realize the number of situations they can be in where the skirts they're wearing don't afford privacy. Even a short skirt on a gal climbing a flight of stairs will afford a view to those behind her due to the elevation difference.
If someone makes themselves visible - wittingly or unwittingly - it isn't a crime to view what one is displaying.
Michael
To: San Jacinto
Okay, smarty-pants, let's set aside expanding the interpretation, and just look at the law, as written. In that respect, do you agree with the following, and, if not, why?
It is certainly reasonable to expect that one will not be subject to cameras looking under one's skirts.
Give me an answer, do.
Paul
To: San Jacinto
You would have to carefully read the statute and it's legislative historyAnd hopefully that what the judge's did.
However the problem arises on many ocassions on how the stautue is written.
Perhaps this stautue needs to be amended
28
posted on
09/19/2002 2:43:41 PM PDT
by
apackof2
To: paulklenk
Why not expand "in places" to include "in places and circumstances"? It is certainly reasonable to expect that one will not be subject to cameras looking under one's skirts. They already have cameras on the street corners in many Seattle suburbs. Now they can use tax dollars to install cameras in the sidewalks and create the latest "reality" TV show. Go left-coast go....straight into Big Brother's hands.
To: San Jacinto
This judge is woman. Unbelievable.
30
posted on
09/19/2002 2:45:17 PM PDT
by
pubmom
To: dfwgator
In a related story, Bill Clinton is moving to Washington State.ROTFL!!
To: chance33_98
Women still wear skirts?
32
posted on
09/19/2002 2:48:17 PM PDT
by
Ditto
To: phasma proeliator
heading to Walmart for film and batteries.
To: chance33_98
I'm moving to Washington and opening a shoe camera store.
34
posted on
09/19/2002 2:50:30 PM PDT
by
AAABEST
To: da_toolman
They'll be a lot of coins hitting the pavement in Washington.
To: ArrogantBustard
Can you give an example of language within the law that would make this ruling correct? I cannot fathom that the law would state that one has the right to look under another's clothing in a public place without that person's permission. So what could the law possibly say that would make this a correct ruling?
36
posted on
09/19/2002 2:54:22 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: San Jacinto
Is that wrong? Is that frowned upon here? See, because if I would've known that... (Seinfeld reference)
To: mhking
This has come about after much badgering by you, my friends and extended family...And Ray-Ray and Boo and Pookie 'nem.
38
posted on
09/19/2002 2:57:59 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
And Ray-Ray and Boo and Pookie 'nem.By the way, how're yo mamma'n'em?
39
posted on
09/19/2002 3:00:48 PM PDT
by
mhking
To: San Jacinto
I have no right to protect myself from UNREASONABLE searches of my person? Get real.
40
posted on
09/19/2002 3:01:39 PM PDT
by
Askel5
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson