Upskirting Legal in Washington

They might be hiding a gun up there or something.

 

it is completely and utterly ridiculous for a court to say that people don't have some expectation of privacy underneath a skirt....utterly ridiculous....that's why we wear clothes, jackasses!!! to keep private what we want to keep private...that's why we talk about people dressing with modesty.

i swear, courts on the west coast must ask their judges to check all common sense at the courthouse door.

 

Makes perfect sense to me...what do homes in Seattle go for these days?

Actually I reference Max's post because I think he says it best.

 

I've got one word for these women. PANTS.

 

Oh yeah...Capri pants like Mary Tyler Moore used to wear on the Dick Van Dyke show. (drool)

You know the really tight Capri pants.

 

Perhaps if these women had been warned in advance that a camera-wielding jackass would be trying to get an up-close-and-personal view, your suggestion would actually have been helpful.

 

He had video shots looking up little girls dresses. Shouldn't he be charged with child p*rnography? They call these people pedophiles.

 

This is all about somebody trying to see what he shouldn't be seeing. Nobody invited him to do it. The Washington court simply got this one wrong.

 

i thought that very same thing...but there wasn't enough detail for me to be certain about that...but, yeah...if these girls are under 18, that's a problem in and of itself.

 

What? Something is wrong with the court system? You're telling this to a divorced Dad. I've just about lost faith in the courts.

 

Language needs to be precise. That's true in all matters - but especially in law.

The court, very obviously, could have decided that the "spirit of the law" protected against such an activity. But decisions like that are reserved for ills that can't/won't be addressed legislatively. It sets a bad precedent to do otherwise - and moreover, there's always a danger that a vague brightline a court sets could have other negative ramifications.

What about police infrared red? That's a controversial new technique, but the court would almost certainly be banning it in the state of WA with the decision you require. What about simply taping people? That probably would be banned as well. If one does have an "expectation of privacy" in such circumstances, then you have to go "all the way."

This is a legislative ill, and can be properly and specifically addressed in such a fashion. People are always talking about courts usurping the "power of the legislature" - now they're not doing it.

The harm that occurred was relatively minor - yes, it is disgusting for the women involved. But now it can be addressed, and in this situation, the damage was done. I bet there's a law on the books to prevent future damage within a week.

 

Law is supposed to define what human decency is and it clearly failed in this case. This is a case of the Supreme Court failing to understand how the law is a living and breathing creature that is able to grow.

 

a) It was a joke, next time I will use a smiley for those with underdeveloped senses of humor. <= This one means I'm kidding and think you have a fine sense of humor and just missed this one.

b) Are you suggesting that none of these women knew that such jackasses existed, or that someone should specifically tell the intended victims that said jackass is coming along?

c) Finally, if they are so concerned about people seeing their undies, what would they do when confronted with the unforseeable danger of walking up the stairs? Or, depending on the length of their skirt, bending and sitting?

 

We are not talking about a random jackass that looks up when a woman is going up stairs. We are talking about a supreme jackass who videotapes up a woman's skirt when she's walking down the street and then plasters it all over the Internet. The 2 situations are easily distinguishable.

 

again...the court, from my reading of the article, is saying that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to what's underneath the skirt they put on when they go out in public...i have admittedly not read the opinion nor the statute, which might be very different from the press' interpretations of it...i do agree with haven that the issue can be dealt with most easily by the legislature...and should be. excellent point, haven..

 

Laws do change. But, it changes by legislative action. The courts, at times, may interpret the laws, but they don't change them. (Judicial review doesn't really apply apply here, since they aren't suggesting any constitutional issues.)

It wasn't a couple of rogue judges -- the court's decision was unanimous -- so the legal issue is probably pretty clear.

From reading the article, it sounds as if the crime the people were charged with specifies the place the photographing takes place. It specifies the place, not what's being photographed. (In other words, you may not view or photograph someone in a location where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a home, or a dressing room.)

They probably had good reasons for writing the law that way -- like wanting to prosecute peeping toms without having to prove the 'subject' was undressed, or even present. (For example, the law probably lets them prosecute someone who puts peepholes in a dressing room, without having to track down victims, getting them to testify, or proving they were undressed.)

This happens all the time. They find a situation that's not covered by a law, and they write a law to cover it. It's the legislatures fault not the court's. (Or if you get down to it, it's the creeps fault.)

I'm personally surprised how much this happens. You would think women would be aware of such things, and take action.

 

The "Consitutional Right to Privacy" (which isn't actually stated in the Constitution) probably would include what's underneath the skirt. The government couldn't pass a law allowing police officers, for example, to check there. The victims should be able to bring a civil suit against the person, and win, stating that he violated their right to privacy.

But the law in question, which the defendants were charged with specifies the specific location where the offense occurred, not what's being photographed.

 

I am suggesting that a woman doesn't expect a stranger to stick a camera up her skirt in a public place and then mass market that image, without permission, for a profit. Are you suggesting that it is somehow unreasonable to think that?

I seldom wear skirts, but when I do I never worry about the aforementioned "dangers." Unless a woman is wearing a micro-mini, her ass will be covered when she sits or stands. And unless she is climbing a ladder, no one is going to see up her skirt -- normal stairs just don't offer that kind of peep show. Sorry.

 

I am, and obviously, it is. One would hope that people would not be such assholes, but i think you, I, and these women know that there are plenty of said assholes around.

I'm from California and there are some very short skirts out here. I couldn't comment on the length of the skirts in the article though, so point taken.