How is this legal??????

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...voyeur20.shtml

The Supreme Court has ruled that although it is "disgusting and reprehensible" it is not illegal to video under a woman's dress or take photographs under her skirt. Jolene Jang, a woman who has had this happen to her says: "I think that's ridiculous"

"Something can be wrong and offensive and still not be a crime."

WTF?! doesn't a person have the right to go out in public and feel safe?!?

So what there trying to say now is, that you don't have to hide the camera anymore you just sit it right under her dress. all you need to worry about is her hand hitting your face or her boyfriend/husband coming after you.

this is the biggest BS i have heard in a long time!!

[Theophylact]

So pass a law.

Thank goodness that not everything that's offensive is illegal. As Hamlet says, "...use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?"

The skirt (or any other article of clothing) should be considered a boundary which distinguishes between "private" and "public".

There would certainly be difficulty enforcing such a law though. Some skirts are shorter than others, and at some point the person wearing the garment has to realize that it may not provide complete modesty in all situations.

Should it be illegal to photograph cheerleaders while cheering? Iceskaters spinning?

This is an interesting topic on personal privacy... one I don't know the answer to....

[Epidemic]

So pass a law.

That is exactly what is wrong with american judicial system.


"ahhh no one told me I could not steal bubble gum on tuesdays. So I only stole on tuesdays"

"No law on the books says I can't kill someone by shoving pasta down their throat in public place."

You do not need a law for each possible scenario. Spirit of the law is just fine.

Gawd dang fargin sons of bastigase.

Filming someone exposing themselves is onething but to actively seek a position to film ones undergarmets is totally different totally without their knowledge or consent. Cheer leaders realize they are exposing themselves for cash.

You watchin' reruns of Johnny Dangerously?

Just a thread. Why get all knotted (no pun) up and tight.

"Ignorance of the law is no defence"

[Epidemic]

In this case it appears to be.


"But the Supreme Court ruled that the mall, too, is a public place where "the voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit 'upskirt' photography."

"A citizen has to be warned by clear language in a statute that particular conduct is a crime in order to be punished as a criminal," he said. "Something can be wrong and offensive and still not be a crime."



They want laws to address every single possibility

What's your personal position on this, Epidemic?

1) For it (The Law Banning photo......)
2) Against it (Not the law, the act of photographing....)
3) Sitting on the fence seeing which way the wind blows
4) Neutral (meaning neither for nor against)

Originally posted by shahani
What's your personal position on this, Epidemic?

Why are you calling out Epidemic for a personal position when you haven't given one?

[originel]

as much as i think it is disgusting and immoral, i agree with the ruling. that's the way things work, and there is a reason for it. if we always prosecuted using the "spirit of the law", there would be cases where that spirit is stretched to meet some other means, making the law say what they want it to say (this still does happen some as it is, just imagine if it was looked upon as "OK"). i do think they should pass a law, but i am also worried about how it would be worded. there are girls here on campus that wear very short skirts with the intention of getting guys attention. i can just see a girl like that abusing this law in order to get someone into trouble.

while i am firmly against what this guy did, and i do feel really sorry for the girl, i think that the ruling was correct.