Massachusetts, Don't Let Upskirt Camera Pervs Off the Hook!
- by: Susan V
- recipient: Massachusetts Supreme Court and Legislature
The Massachusetts Supreme Court says it may not be OK for a stranger to photograph up a woman’s skirt. But it ruled, nevertheless, that it's not illegal.
The issue was brought before the high court after Michael Robertson was arrested for videotaping and photographing up women’s skirts while they were riding on a public trolley. After several complaints were filed, Robertson was caught in a decoy operation and charged with “attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity.”
So the court said Robertson didn’t do anything illegal because the women involved were not nude or partially nude. Robertson’s lawyers also argued that female passengers on a trolley should not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,“ and the state’s highest court had the audacity to agree - in what appears to be an attempt to negate the federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004.
District Attorney Dan Conley is now urging MA to pass a law that will clearly protect anyone’s right to privacy beneath their clothing. But if he didn’t bring up the VVPA, why not? Even if there’s not an adequate law on the state books, the high court should not have ignored the federal law.
MA needs to pass state laws that protect citizens from any form of sexual assault or invasion of personal privacy, but it also should enforce federal laws that already don't let upskirt camera pervs off the hook.
We, the undersigned, say Massachusetts has failed to protect its citizens from sexual assault and invasion of privacy, by letting a camera perv off the hook.
Maybe current MA laws do not clearly protect citizens from this particular invasion of privacy, but the federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 88: 1801) seems to do so very well. It reads, in pertinent part:
(a) Whoever, in…the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both….
(3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; ….the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” [includes]….circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
According to Wikipedia, even though it’s “legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property“ in the US, there are exceptions, such as bans on photographing in areas generally regarded as private, like bathrooms. Only if subjects do not “attempt to conceal their private affairs,” do they become susceptible to being photographed.
Therefore its seems odd, even negligent, that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts would not have the common sense to rule that wearing a skirt that covers a person’s undergarments is not considered an attempt to conceal a person’s private “affairs.“
Wikipedia also notes that “many places have laws prohibiting photographing private areas under a person's clothing without that person's permission,” and that “state laws have been passed addressing the issue as well.”
Given all these factors, it seems totally irresponsible that the MA Supreme Court let this camera perv off the hook. We request that MA pass state laws and enforce all laws that protect this right to privacy from now on, as it should have done in Robertson‘s case.
Thanks for you time.
By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.
Having problems signing this? Let us know.