For those folks who are special enough..in their own minds at least..to think they are exempt from distasteful laws shouting from rooftops “constitutional right” to do whatever we want anyway we want….start looking in the mirror and at like minded buddies to thank them for laws that cramp your style. The “constitutional” idea that you like it, want it and are entitled to it is tantamount to the stuff causing constitutional visits to the toilet, just as likely to be interrupted at some point.
Take Robertson who was caught on Mass Bay Transit, the one who had guys celebrating for a day until they complained a law was passed to criminalize these actions. This guy felt entitled to film unaware and non-consenting women beneath their clothing. So did a volunteer videographer who shot extensive boob and a few up-skirts at an Easthampton summer concert in 2009, he was luckier than Robertson when the tv station suspended him for three months instead of pursuing charges.
Lawyers and lawful voyeurs will want to remember the Robertson case as they defend criminal charges for filming accidental or voyeur opportunities plainly visible to the eye. Intentionally invasive voyeurs backslapping and congratulating each other over the Robertson ruling then denigrating the Government overlook the reality that the Governing Constitution protecting their due process rights simultaneously enforces the right to privacy for other individuals.
The backslappers must be taking their cues from Porn lawyers and analysts authoritatively decrying the law passage as a knee jerk reaction to Robertson. These authoritarians didn’t research or they get their jollies by purposely misleading readers spinning half truths. Many articles indicate reading the Bill and History, outrage for no public hearing and rhetorical propaganda about chivalry or prude women. Here’s the background they didn’t mention.
News coverage in 2009 for the Eastahampton case into 2010 before Robertson and Bills presented in 2011 show concern over intrusive behavior and intent to protect minors from being photographed without consent. The Bills weren’t about accidental or even opportunistic photos of a major wardrobe malfunction or opportunities like a group photo that is embarrassing due to a front row position and wide stance making panties obvious, or forgotten zippers. The Constitutional right to privacy extends beyond governmental or regulatory interference and due process in criminal matters. The individual right to privacy trumps the right of another individual or government desire to infringe. Additionally anyone who thinks this new law is unconstitutional or its creation was unlawful has the right to challenge it.
Several senate bills as well as the House versions detailed below were introduced over a three year period to criminalize behavior using a camera to record what others arguably want kept private. The Bills made no mention of often associated physical contact or intrusive ruses to create opportunities for unlawful sexual surveillance.
H3934 ‘An Act Relative to Unlawful Sexual Surveillance’ did happen on its face in one day, it’s incorrect to say this was a knee jerk reaction. This was a planned legislative maneuver to protect the constitutional right to privacy of folks who don’t want other folks using a video device to take images of areas they didn’t put on public display. The Judiciary had hearings in both the 187th and 188th Mass General Court but didn’t present any final reports during the pending Robertson case. If the Mass Supreme Court didn’t rule in Robertson’s favor there would have been case law for the state to rely on protecting the privacy of citizens who are unaware and/or non-consenting to be photographed beneath the clothing they chose to wear, thus defining their reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
H3934 has fiscal penalties up to $10,000 but started at $50,000 in H2153(187th) ‘An Act providing further protection from photographing, videotaping or electronically surveilling a partially nude or nude child.” 1/21/11 by Paul Brodeur (D) Melrose. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee where it stalled along with H500 “An Act relative to voyeurism” by Scibak (D) Hadley 1/13/11. Both bills were shelved on 7/31/12 with a house cleaning order to study before the session ended and were reintroduced to the next session on 1/22/13. The 188th punted H1231 and H1611 to the Judiciary Committee where they stalled after a 5/2/13 hearing. 3/6/14 House Ways and Means presented Brodeur’s H1231 renamed with lower fiscal penalties as H3934 “An Act relative to unlawful sexual surveillance” with the lower fiscal penalty and unanimous passage.
The US Constitution doesn’t stand alone, it is attached to and supported by laws we like as well as loathe. If you’re into beastiality homework to find the name and events behind H1594 in the 188th Mass General Court is all yours.
For those of you who hate this new law as nonsensical chivalry here’s another dose of reality, men aren’t too thrilled with surreptitious sexual photos either. Pro sport players kept women reporters out of the locker room for years and still complain about having to wear a towel if they don’t want the reporters to see what they know can’t be filmed.
This law gives men, women and parents a viable alternative to beating the crap out of the person with the camera..like the guy who would try to have them arrested for breaking his nose and still shot camera when caught for the third time beneath the bleachers filming the fully dressed “ten and under” kids participating in a recreation sport program. Thankfully for him the cops had removed him before a very irate six year old boy approached the other coach looking for the man who didn’t give him the promised $20 to watch him pee. The unbroken video camera with the video of the boy made denials futile.
Guess I didn’t learn when they suspended me from Jr High for retaliating against bra breaking, tube top stripping boys with a swift kick to the balls after they got too big for wedgies. The third suspension with added warnings of criminal charges for making them puke was the day before our family lawyer named the school and boys as defendants. Two weeks later I was allowed to take tests previously refused due to the suspension as the board passed emergency policy with varied levels of discipline for boys being boys. The girls were further reminded that “assault” is a criminal matter.
For voyeurs whipping out the ball-busting bitch label, your compliment is appreciated and comes with a promise not use my hands, feet or other means to physically mash your balls unawares. Amazing but true…men who would willingly forgive non-consentual kicks or punches to the torso, arms or legs have issues with a kick to the balls for some reason. Even guys into BDSM said they wouldn’t like being kicked or punched unawares in the balls as a routine part of commuting to work. Must be that old goose and gander thing.
10 Responses
H3934 AKA goose and gander http://t.co/ul26fTsqao
RT @MikeSouth1226: H3934 AKA goose and gander http://t.co/ul26fTsqao
I may be a little ignorant, but I have to say that taking a picture of someone as they have presented themselves in public isn’t exactly on par with causing someone random physical harm (aka punching them in the balls). Perhaps ladies (wanting to be ladies) should take a cue from the local women folk around my parts, who wear some of the shortest skirts and tiniest jean shorts around for about 8 months a year, and do so with absolutely no risk of exposure because their wear short spandex or lycra shorts under them, before their panties. So an upskirter here would get a picture of black lycra, not exactly pleasant to the camera.
I dislike the idea of guys sticking cameras up a girls skirt or putting hidden cameras on their shoes for a better angle, but at the same time so much of what is “public voyeur” is what can be seen with the naked eye, unaided by technology. It should come as no shock to a lady that a man will stare at her well displayed cleavage or her tiny little panties up her skirt if she so presents them in a way that anyone can see.
Balance… it’s a wonderful thing lacking in modern society.
@rawalex,,,”Can be seen with the naked eye, unaided by technology” Thats alot different than using a microcamera on your shoe to look up a dress.
But to anyone who defends this type of behavior I have one simple question,,,,Would you defend the person doing this if it was your 10 year old daughter who was the victim? This question usually ends the debate pretty quickly.
@raw
Totally agree with you that random physical harm crosses the line which is why I promise NOT to do it. Since it grabbed your attention I made my point…absolutely enjoy what’s intentionally offered to public participants but don’t blame folks who get pissed when what they didn’t offer is taken.
Not sure balance is lacking in modern society or the myriad cultures in totality. IG this law forces those who expect privacy to define and protect that line while allowing freedom to those who wish to record what’s put on display. The fact that some will continue surreptitious recording is offset by those who will accuse and blame folks for recording their wardrobe malfunctions or poor positioning…and further balanced by common courtesy lacking in those two extremes.
“this question usually ends the debate pretty quick”.
Not really, because at that point the issue isn’t “peeping”, it’s an issue of a pedophile. it’s on par with saying “People die from taking Meth, so weed must be bad” – it’s misleading and has little to do with the real world issues.
Moreover, let’s be clear here. As the parent of a young child, I am very much aware and have my spider sense turned up full when he is in public places or around people I don’t know. I am aware that there always pervs out there who would enjoy playing with a little boy, so I do my part as a RESPONSIBLE ADULT to try not to put him in places or situations that will put him at risk. I cannot control the actions or thoughts of others, but I can certainly try to avoid the issue.
In the same manner, as I said, the issue of down blouse or upskirt shots in part has to do with people being RESPONSIBLE ADULTS – why the heck do girls feel the need to wander around in public with their panties on full display or their tits hanging out? If they do it, they should not be surprised if in a public place someone snaps a pic or takes a video, if you want to be a show off, you get what comes with it.
Remember, I don’t defend the behavior, I only note that for the most part it takes two to tango. Permitting your teenage daughter to parade around in a jean skirt the size of a belt with g-strings on is only going to cause issues. Pedos and pervs would have nothing to look at if people were taking care themselves. I know, don’t blame the victim and all, but still – taking some responsibility would be nice.
@raw,,,I know you dont condone the behavior,,,and what adults do is their own business,,,,,but as we all know,,,this type of crap is not limited to adults
What about the perv at the park who takes pictures of the kids playing on the swings, or kids at the beach in their bathing suits….would you argue that these kids are out in public and therefore the person has the right to take their picture? Or as a parent, would you shove that camera up his ass and take a picture of his tonsils from the inside?
The problem is that, in a legal sense, he does have that right to take the pictures, like it or not. I may contact the police to come and have a chat with him about it, but honestly, what can you do? It’s a public place, not a private one.
See, you are trying to set up the most extreme situation as a way to choke off the rest of it. But it doesn’t work. You can’t have a “don’t take a picture of a child in public, even by accident” rule, because then there would be a push for a “don’t take a picture of a celeb in public” or “don’t take a picture of a criminal” and so on. Public is public, sad but true.
There are already laws on the books when it comes to dealing with pedos, they are most often not properly applied or enforced, or are only enforced after something terrible happens. As I said before, if someone is going to extremes to take a picture (such as climbing under a grandstand or as one idiot did hiding inside a porta-potty) then the law can handle that directly as it is. There is no need to try to change the laws on photography in public places to try to nail the exceptional cases, it should be handled in different ways by criminalizing the intent or the goal, not the particular action.
When your argument is “think of the children!” it sounds like the first step towards a grandstanding politician passing a law that won’t pass constitutional muster.
Agree this issue is peeping which has its own niches…kids, girls, boys, fat, skinny, men, women, 20-40 silver set and even geriatrics.
A girl wearing a belt skirt and g-string likely wouldn’t cry privacy over the ass & more photos she is offering the world, however if a camera were shoved down her conservative v neck imaging her bra-less breasts she chose to keep private, there is no longer an assumption that displaying her ass also allows access to her covered boobs.
Personal responsibility isn’t vulnerability immunity, nor is it a license to impose that ideal onto the next person.
As a parent this lesson is humbling especially when it comes to fashion sense and teenagers…I can recall hiding my gym bloomers…lol the nasty ass green romper with elastic arms and legs that snapped every half inch..In favor of my new nylon shorts. Of course the gym teacher gave me the lecture but she didn’t understand..gym was last class…my boyfriend was in town and we made plans for him to wait for me 🙂 trust me in ten years if your son wants to wear his jeans below his ass…all the dress codes you or the school impose are gone the second he can loosen the belt a couple notches. Doesn’t make them irresponsible, makes them teenagers.
The gym bloomers is funny because those nylon shorts I favored were the very same type shorts required by Florida dept of ed for my girls. Cheer uniforms are required to be a certain length from the knee and hip or your team loses competition points…still didn’t stop some girls from trying to hitch Em up…nor did the regulation length prevent the leering stares of pervs and/or judgmental assholes. Football injuries we learned are a pervs opportunity to capture the moment garments are cut away for first aid purposes…that huddle to protect the kid from at large viewership..opened the door to paranoia by some “responsible” folk with over active spider senses.
Asking if folks are okay with it if it were their kid is a useless measure beyond possibly finding like-minded associates. Pedos and pervs have a spider sense too and not one of them would out themselves to me because it isn’t my thing. Aside from the fact that being attracted to three year olds kinda sucks when they grow so fast…easier to groom available kids than waiting three years for the next one to hatch.
If anyone asked my dad if he’d be okay with me going into porn…he’d tell them straight up..only if she wants to. I respect that honesty a lot more than the germ phobic family who insists that cake candles be “waved out” vs blown out and tried to require recipe cards for “allergy awareness” at every pot luck. Their oldest is now in jail for raping a co-ed, proving my point that imposing your ideals on someone else isn’t personal responsibility.
@jilted
As a parent I chose to dress my girls in modest clothing. We frequented hotels with public pools and required the girls to wear their matching suit cover ups as well as shoes to protect their feet. I never ran into the pool to cover their asses when they picked the slide wedgie out….but often watched the eyes roll as moms did this..Like uh okay lady whatever..now if she were standing at the bottom of the slide photographing random toddler asses while waiting for hers…I’d prolly forget it isn’t okay to smash cameras in faces.
If someone is snapping pics at the pool, theme park or bus making a collection of attractive people…more power to them. I’ll tell ya right now that there are folks who stand at the bottom of tall water park slides just to snap pics…it’s no different than lining up a prime viewing location to snap images of parade floats.
This law is like a photo-pick pocket law. wallet on a bench…it’s fair game vs reaching into a pocket purse or bag. Reaching under a skirt, hiding under bleachers or jostling to create opportunities…are now a much more fair game between those who want to and those who don’t want to let them. That is the goal of any law or policy.