Court rules cell phone upskirt pics are legal


#1

“May it please the court if I place a cell phone up this court’s trouser leg and take a picture or two?”
These words might have been the temptation of many after hearing an interestingly thought-out decision in Massachusetts.
As The Associated Press reports, the highest court in Massachusetts decided that one of the lowest forms of behavior – taking upskirt cell phone pictures – was legal.
The reasoning might cause some to rend their clothing and toss it in the direction of the court. For Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court declared that as the women whose skirts were being spied up were not unclothed, the so-called Peeping Tom laws do not apply.
In essence, these laws protect those who are partially or entirely undressed, such as in changing rooms or the privacy of their own homes. Subway riders, on the other hand, are not.
The case it was considering was that of 31-year-old Michael Robertson, who was arrested in 2010 for riding the subway and taking these unseemly pictures with his cell phone.

news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57619965-71/court-rules-cell-phone-upskirt-pics-are-legal/

I am speechless.


#2

Well if that’s not illegal, then beating the snot out the creep shouldn’t be either. :smiley:


#3

This is what happens when judges and law makers fail to realize that laws of man are supposed to reflect the Laws of God.

Doesn’t matter that the letter of the peeping tom law was designed to protect unclothed or partly unclothed people… the spirit of the law was to protect people from spying on people’s private parts.

When they wrote the law we didn’t have cell phones with camaras. What about the dirty old man with a mirror on the bottom of his cane?

This is proof that once you take God out of the picture, makes stupid decisions. :frowning:


#4

:thumbsup:


#5

Funny. Whenever judges interpret the spirit of the law in order to apply it to new scenarios they are accused of being activist judges legislating from the bench. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t I suppose. :shrug:


#6

This is a good example of abiding by the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. I see now that “phil” said the same thing, but I think it bears repeating.


#7

This is also a good point. But aren’t activist judges said to legislate new laws from the bench which are farther removed from the older ones, rather than re-interpret existing laws?


#8

I don’t think that is ever really what happens. It’s always just a catch-22 situation that leaves one side of the argument grumbling. If you’re too specific in the letter of the law then the risk is that it cannot be applied to new scenarios which the authors either couldn’t have imagined or just didn’t consider; as was the case in this circumstance. If you’re too vague in the letter of the law then it’s application is open to interpretation as the judiciary sees fit. Doesn’t mean that anyone is legislating from the bench; only that they are doing what they are supposed to in interpreting the open-ended text of the law as they understand its meaning.


#9

So its okay for perverts to take photos of girls underwear without their consent? That’s sad you feel that way.


#10

Much as I’m quick to criticize the Mass. court, I have to agree with them on this.

Let’s keep it in perspective though.

The court ruled that the law does not apply.

Next step: change the law so that it does apply.

Let us remember though, that changing the law is the role of the legislature, not the courts; so I think we should applaud the court for their restraint in not-changing the law, as this one has done all too often.


#11

I am a proponent of judges interpreting the spirit of laws. Otherwise, our representatives would actually have to go to work every once in a while.


#12

That’s not what Jesus would do!


#13

These are the same courts and same judges who allow “same sex” unions under the ruse of “civil rights”, “human rights”, “freedom”, etc. Ad nauseam.

Pax,
Tarpeian


#14

The so-called “right to privacy” that’s supposedly somewhere in the U.S. Constitution gave SCOTUS permission to unleash death and dismemberment upon millions of unborn children, and yet these same women have no right to the privacy of their own clothes? It’s a war for women.


#15

According to the news article, the judges did say that such photos should be illegal, just they are not illegal under current law. The article also quoted the Massachusetts House Speaker as saying that a new law will be drafted immediately.

Quoting from the news article:

*The Supreme Judicial Court did agree that such cowardly, perverted photography ought to be illegal. It simply couldn’t or wouldn’t interpret existing laws to cover that illegality.

Some might wonder whether the court tried hard enough. Indeed, the Boston Herald reports that the reaction of Massachusetts House Speaker Robert Leo was this: “The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law. The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today’s technology immediately.”*


#16

This ruling is…I don’t understand how…what were they…how does…I’m speechless.:frowning:


#17

ahhh, have we forgotten the whip and the cleansing of the temple? :wink:


#18

Agree.


#19

Always remember: When someone asks, “What would Jesus do?”, whipping people and flipping tables is a perfectly valid option. :smiley:


#20

Jesus herded the money changers out like cattle. He didn’t physically beat them. I seriously doubt that He’d thunder punch someone in the throat. .


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.