Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

  

'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law
  
 
Bsmooth
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill Friday, according to his office, making photographing or recording video under a person's clothing -- think down a blouse or up a skirt -- a misdemeanor.

The crime is punishable by up 2˝ years in jail or a fine of up to $5,000.

Oh boy here we go again, don't get me wrong I don't believe peeking up skirts is a good thing, but do we actually have to have specific laws for it ?
MA is reknown for stupid laws, look at the no texting while driving law, yep thats a waste of time.
Not only that and this was brought up on another site, what happens If you take a picture in apark with hundreds of people and a woman has a dress on sitting down and facing you. The law does specify "secretly", but that could be seen as breaking the law.
Besides and I'm sure I'll come off as a bigoted "manpig",If you don't want to have your behind or other secret parts photographed, why wear a skirt half-way up your rear end ?
The guys who still do this stuff will still do it, they can't help themselves.
Am I just being a manpig here or what ? Ladies opinions very welcomed.



Mar 07, 2014 at 06:20 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


… Sad day in America …

I remember the day when you could stand at the bottom of an escalator … and proudly “look up” and smile … To think that that “Civil Right” has been taken away is just …

… (Note to Self: Sell shoe mirror stock …) ...




Mar 07, 2014 at 06:32 PM
teddoman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


I think criminal conviction requires intent. So your example wouldn't be convictable under this new upskirt law.


Mar 07, 2014 at 09:25 PM
jim allison
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


Involuntary manslaughter and drunken driving are the first two violations that come to mind,
for which intent is not necessary for conviction. As citizens we are required to obey the law.If your
acccountant creates a fraudulent tax return on your behalf and you sign and file it, you
are still guilty of a violation, even if you never intended the return to be fraudulent.



Mar 07, 2014 at 11:39 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


Jefferson wrote:
I remember the day when you could stand at the bottom of an escalator …


I recently did that with two miniskirts at a local electronics mall - it was the two กะเทย who run the mobile phone stall near the exit.



Mar 08, 2014 at 12:22 AM
shelbystripes
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


As a general rule, some level of intent is a requirement for any criminal conviction. Involuntary manslaughter and drunken driving both rely on a sort of indirect intent. It's true that when you're drunk you're impaired and can't really have the intent to harm someone, but you made a conscious decision to get drunk in the first place. You can't willfully impair yourself and then use that impairment as a defense of your actions, so it's assumed that you're responsible for what you do while impaired if you chose to impair yourself. That's where the intent in drunk driving convictions really lies. There is always some factor of intent in a criminal case, in some way.

Why don't we see what this particular law says about intent:

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 ˝ years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by...Show more

The bolded/underlined parts are all intent elements. 1) You have to willfully photograph. That means it has to be a conscious decision. 2) The "intent to" means you have to have the very specific intent defined in the law. In this case, while you are taking the photograph you have to specifically intend to hide the fact that you're taking the photograph. 3) The "reasonable person" part also tests the photographer's intent. It has to be a situation where a reasonable person would believe the part of the person you're photographing wouldn't be visible to the public. If a reasonable person WOULD think the thing you photographed was intended to be visible in public (because, for example, you photographed a woman with a very low cut and revealing top) then you didn't violate the law even if you did intend to secretly take the photo, because you weren't intending to photograph something that was meant to be hidden. Even if you were hiding in a trash can and taking pictures with a spy camera that looked like a pen, if the only boobs or butts you photographed were publicly visible, you did not break this law.

So, about the OP's question:

what happens If you take a picture in apark with hundreds of people and a woman has a dress on sitting down and facing you.

Well, let's see. 1) You are willfully taking photographs, true, but... 2) Are you doing it secretly, or can people tell that you have a camera? If she's sitting down and facing you, wouldn't she see your camera if you're just innocuously taking pictures in a park? 3) If you can catch pictures of boob or butt without trying to, then they are probably visible to the public. Since all of the intent elements have to be proven to convict you, you're free if you can knock out just one of them. You can cancel out element #2 with: "I had my camera out and everyone could see it." You can cancel out element #3 with: "Look at that picture. Her boobs are in the picture because they're just sticking out of that dress. Would a reasonable person really say those things aren't meant to be seen in public?"

You may think these laws are stupid, but nobody would write them if the thing they applied to never happened. In fact, the whole reason this law was passed was because someone was taking upskirt photos and a judge ruled that the law they tried to charged him with didn't actually prohibit upskirt photos. So they made one that did. This exists because someone, at some point, had all of that intent and actually did that thing, and the lawmakers want to prevent it from happening again.



Mar 08, 2014 at 06:21 AM
Savas K
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


It’s a great law for lawyers. Over-encompassing or vague law is what fuels inter-lawyer argument and drives up lawyer fees.


Mar 08, 2014 at 11:55 AM
trenchmonkey
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


Not sure I need to see what someone in a mini had for breakfast,
and I'm sure not down with firing off a shot or two...just sayin'



Mar 08, 2014 at 12:28 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



teddoman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


Savas K wrote:
It’s a great law for lawyers. Over-encompassing or vague law is what fuels inter-lawyer argument and drives up lawyer fees.

Overly broad and vague laws that create a zone of vagueness and end up deterring lawful behavior are a terrible idea. Not sure this law is overly broad and vague though.

Just reading the quoted parts of the law, I wonder if this law will affect papparazzi photographers as well? What if they use a supertelephoto to take a photo of a celebrity who thinks they are in private and captures some nudity? Seems like this type of behavior would be against the law.

Still, I'm naturally sympathetic to the personal privacy of the people who this law is designed to protect, even that of a celebrity. I don't think I'd ever be a paparazzi photographer. If the balance that this law strikes is to outlaw certain paparazzi behaviors, I can't say I'd personally object that much.



Mar 08, 2014 at 10:56 PM
ergosyn
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


I just picture a guy with a 6d w/ 24-105 taped to his shoe walking around the mall.


Mar 10, 2014 at 02:10 AM
Savas K
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


So what's next after the upskirt law? A down the cleavage law?


Mar 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM
teddoman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


ergosyn wrote:
I just picture a guy with a 6d w/ 24-105 taped to his shoe walking around the mall.

Hah! With a battery grip too I assume :-)

But seriously, how about a mirrorless camera and prime lens inside a doll attached to a stroller, being operated via wireless? That is easily possible already and no one would notice it.



Mar 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM
teddoman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


Savas K wrote:
So what's next after the upskirt law? A down the cleavage law?

If they felt the need to legislate it, that's because there are enough people out there doing this stuff.

A law like this protects you too. If you wear shorts and fall asleep riding the train, and your junk is accidentally visible from a low angle, do you really want some kid to photograph you and your junk and have it go viral with your name and town?

Do you feel you have a right to privacy in a public bathroom? If the door on your stall has a small gap, is someone entitled to take a photograph of you through the gap and post it all over the Internet?

I'm having trouble thinking of examples of where legitimate press photography would be hindered by a law like this, whereas the privacy concern seems valid.



Mar 10, 2014 at 02:53 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


… Google Glasses (contacts)… They will become more discrete and more advanced … and where ever you look … where ever you look from … they see too …

Just a thought …



Mar 10, 2014 at 03:03 PM
Savas K
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


teddoman wrote:
If they felt the need to legislate it, that's because there are enough people out there doing this stuff.

A law like this protects you too. If you wear shorts and fall asleep riding the train, and your junk is accidentally visible from a low angle, do you really want some kid to photograph you and your junk and have it go viral with your name and town?

Do you feel you have a right to privacy in a public bathroom? If the door on your stall has a small gap, is someone entitled to take a photograph of you through the
...Show more


Well, there you go! You just added a "junk hanging out" law. See how fast it is for these laws to get out of hand?



Mar 11, 2014 at 12:56 AM
Beni
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 'Upskirt' ban in Massachusetts signed into law


The UK paparazzi would all be out of business, all they know to do is shoot topless pictures with very long lenses...


Mar 11, 2014 at 07:32 PM





FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password