I heard today that a court ruled in Massachusetts, that it's legal to look up womens skirts? Anybody else hear this?

what I read was

Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing -- a practice known as "upskirting" -- prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.

The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.

"A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is 'partially nude,' no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing," wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court


Id say it depends upon the action itself. This sounds maybe like he held his phone in a way that it could view under the skirt of (seated?) passengers

would it be legal for him to lie on the floor or bend down and view what was WITHIN VIEW? probably

its a thin line to consider, but easily avoided by covering ourself up and sitting legs closed/crossed,,

Yea that was it. It just seems like we are enabling so many people nowadays

Mass passed a law banning "upskirting today".

It's about time lawmakers passed a law to help future victims instead of protecting people who are doing wrong.

Maybe Texas should pass a law making sexting between adults and kids and even more explicitly between teachers and students.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/02/24/5596703/a-teacher-sexting-and-the-right.html

"Sean Arlis Williams, now 31, who was a junior high school teacher in the Everman district, was eventually arrested on a charge of online solicitation of a minor, which was later changed to improper relationship between an educator and student.

But this month, based on a recent appeals court ruling dealing with a similar case in Harris County, Tarrant County prosecutors dismissed his case.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in October that a 2005 statute, which made sexually explicit online communication between an adult and minor illegal, violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The court examined the case of John Christopher Lo, who was arrested in 2010 after being accused of sending sexually explicit text messages to a student he met while working as a choir director in a school district outside Houston."

This country was doomed Dec 24th, 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law.

This country was doomed the day the Great Society was started.

I agree. The judge's interpretation of that law was ridiculously strict. Aren't there other laws that would apply such as privacy or harrassment or public decency/disorderly conduct?

besides if they are looking at at an unclothed part of the body that is nude...even if the rest of her is not.

I think a judge did not eat her brain food on that day

I know I'm not moving to massechusetts lol

this country was doomed the day barack obama "found" a birth certificate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvU4CC6s2e4
Gloom......Despair

Looks like if a gal is wearing a micro mini skirt and no panties, it will be agin da law to check her out when she reaches up to grab the rail on the bus.

I never said I did that.

Soon there won't even be any countries.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8dAMZ6YdUo

In both of the Texas cases neither adult solicited the minor for sex.

It is not to say that they weren't going to do it, but based on the evidence obtained by police they didn't meet the standard for solicitation charges to lead to a conviction.

This is a slippery slope. No doubt..

But I think that the defense of the 1st amendment is paramount.

Regardless if it is political speech or less than savory explicit speech..

Teachers that conduct themselves in this type of manner with students will suffer the consequences through the loss of their job and the certificate to teach revoked.

Wow rights and privileges intermixed with the rights ignored and privileges predominant.

make enough Laws................................

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand -FN-

we agree on this,,, FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a very far reaching 'right' in the technology age,,,,



sexting and other texts can always be ignored or deleted,,,and don't physically 'harm' anyone

and if there was no actual solicitation or threat,, I understand the ruling

upskirting, likewise, is a broad term where the details are important

if someone is sitting with themselves exposed so that the blind eye could see up the skirt, and a camera catches it,,,there wasn't really an expectation of privacy

if someone is standing on the sidewalk and someone hides a camera under a grate,, the expectation of privacy (not expecting anyone to be UNDERNEATH you) is a bit easier to argue,,,

This country is soooooo out of Whack.

It is my opinion that the our inadequate "leaders" are playing a game about how many laws and regulations they can make in a given year. And most of these "leaders" at lawyer's. Who love to hear themselves talk and write.

Let's use some good common sense here. And lawyers hate this because there are no parameters to go by. So lawyers write laws, which are b.s because even a law can be bent over and spanked with proper procedures and wording.
Is it ok to view or take a picture up my daughters skirt. Be my guest, just know that there is always a result of one's actions. No matter how big or small.

When we view such b.s as it relates to us, it quite different. Me personally, I wouldn't let the sleazy worm get off the bus. And I know I am teaching my daughter the same.

Something's, when it relates to family, must be taken into your own hands.

Less laws, equals less lawyers and red tape. Which in turn equals a happier county.

How very true, go into any US law library and ask the librarian to show you the section for Federal regulations, not the 50 volumes of Federal statutes, just the regulations. They will cover approximately 30 feet of shelving that is 8 feet tall. And these books are like a bible in that they are printed in small print on very thin paper.

You know what's F'up here? That American's sit around and debate this crap instead of acting.
And any replies about taking the "law" into my own hands are welcome.

Bottom line, if you aren't willing to fight for your children and maybe put behind bars, then what are you doing on this planet. Please exsit stage left thank you.

My apologies, this is an emotional topic for me and I probably should have avoided.

what rights are ignored?

There is nothing here that even purports to understand what a right actually is, in fact it portrays a distinct misunderstanding of rights.

But what is even worse is the portrayal of some mystical being in a black robe has some divine knowledge that makes him uniquely qualified to pass judgement upon another, a violation of rights unto itself.

And rights to privacy explanation, what a joke. If you expect privacy don't wear skirts, otherwise you make get what you expect.