This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/07/massachusetts-court-upskit-photos-legal-anti-creepshot-laws

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
In a world where upskirt shots are legal, there can't be enough anti-creep laws In a world where upskirt shots are legal, there can't be enough anti-creep laws
(about 5 hours later)
Here’s the thing about picture-collecting voyeurism: desire may be Here’s the thing about picture-collecting voyeurism: desire may be
amoral, but the act of taking iPhone photos of non-consenting amoral, but the act of taking iPhone photos of non-consenting
individuals in order to get your rocks off doesn’t happen without individuals in order to get your rocks off doesn’t happen without
consequences. There are personal repercussions. And there should be moreconsequences. There are personal repercussions. And there should be more
legal punishment, too. legal punishment, too.
No,No,
“creepshots” aren’t protected by the First Amendment, which “does “creepshots” aren’t protected by the First Amendment, which “does
not protect purely private recreational, non-communicative photography”,not protect purely private recreational, non-communicative photography”,
according to a 2010 ruling. But they’re still running too rampant. according to a 2010 ruling. But they’re still running too rampant.
ItIt
all depends on what camera angle the creeps are using, which body part all depends on what camera angle the creeps are using, which body part
they focus on and, until this week, which state they lived in.they focus on and, until this week, which state they lived in.
Yes, as of Wednesday, it became perfectly legal to take “upskirt” shots of unsuspecting women on public transportation in the state of Massachusetts. Thank god the state legislature has now rushed through a bill to overturn such a ridiculous judgment by the courts. (Update: Gov Deval Patrick has made upskirts illegal – officially.) Yes, as of Wednesday, it was found to be perfectly legal to take “upskirt” shots of unsuspecting women on public transportation in the state of Massachusetts. Thank god the state legislature has now rushed through a bill to counter such a ridiculous ruling by the courts. (Update: Gov Deval Patrick has made upskirts illegal – officially.)
The MassachusettsThe Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court argued that the state’s so-called “peeping Tom” Supreme Judicial Court argued that the state’s so-called “peeping Tom”
laws only applied to unwitting victims – nude or partially nude – who laws only applied to unwitting victims – nude or partially nude – who
were photographed without their knowledge, in places like changing roomswere photographed without their knowledge, in places like changing rooms
or bathrooms. Which, apparently, had nothing to do with someone taking a or bathrooms. Which, apparently, had nothing to do with someone taking a
photograph of your panties on the T because, well, like I said, it’s photograph of your panties on the T because, well, like I said, it’s
ridiculous:ridiculous:
A female passenger on an A female passenger on an
MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these
parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude”, no matter parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude”, no matter
what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other
clothing.clothing.
So, it’s a constitutional right to take pictures of things that are So, it’s a constitutional right to take pictures of things that are
plainly visible in public spaces. But the Fourth Amendment and its rightplainly visible in public spaces. But the Fourth Amendment and its right
“to be secure in their persons” does a pretty good job of covering “to be secure in their persons” does a pretty good job of covering
bodily autonomy, used as it is to defend abortion. Maybe somebody needs bodily autonomy, used as it is to defend abortion. Maybe somebody needs
to remind the uncivilized men who take upskirts of that, whatever their to remind the uncivilized men who take upskirts of that, whatever their
temporary vantage point.temporary vantage point.
SkirtsSkirts
generally do a pretty good job of covering flesh and undergarments you generally do a pretty good job of covering flesh and undergarments you
don’t want to expose – otherwise we’d just walk around in jeans or don’t want to expose – otherwise we’d just walk around in jeans or
knickers. But as anyone who’s ever actually worn a skirt well knows, theknickers. But as anyone who’s ever actually worn a skirt well knows, the
only guaranteed way to render your skirt-clad lower body a chinkless only guaranteed way to render your skirt-clad lower body a chinkless
fortress is to stitch it tightly around your legs until it resembles, fortress is to stitch it tightly around your legs until it resembles,
well, a pair of trousers.well, a pair of trousers.
Suddenly,Suddenly,
the notion of “wearing the trousers” seems quite oppressive, and yet the notion of “wearing the trousers” seems quite oppressive, and yet
wearing a skirt makes you liable for intimate photographic invasion at wearing a skirt makes you liable for intimate photographic invasion at
all times. What’s a woman who doesn’t want to live in Puritan Times to all times. What’s a woman who doesn’t want to live in Puritan Times to
do?do?
Well, hope the Massachusetts law gets immediately overturned in the Well, hope the Massachusetts law gets immediately dressed down in the
statehouse, of course – which is on its way to happening, thank Sense. statehouse, of course – which is on its way to happening, thank Sense.
The new bill makes taking a creepshot or recording under or around a The new bill makes taking a creepshot or recording under or around a
person’s clothing a Massachusetts misdemeanour, at least when a person’s clothing a Massachusetts misdemeanour, at least when a
reasonable person would believe that their sexual or other intimate reasonable person would believe that their sexual or other intimate
parts would not be visible to the public. The legislation would parts would not be visible to the public. The legislation would
also make it illegal to take a photo or recording under or around a also make it illegal to take a photo or recording under or around a
person’s clothing without their knowledge.person’s clothing without their knowledge.
II
presume that catches not just the upskirters but the bum fetishists, presume that catches not just the upskirters but the bum fetishists,
forearm fetishists, knee fetishists and toe fetishists alike. And there forearm fetishists, knee fetishists and toe fetishists alike. And there
are all sorts of photo fetish addicts out there, sharing their stolen are all sorts of photo fetish addicts out there, sharing their stolen
picture-swag on forums across the internet. But something tells me we picture-swag on forums across the internet. But something tells me we
won’t be seeing a wave of prosecutions any time soon – at least not if won’t be seeing a wave of prosecutions any time soon – at least not if
the backlog of domestic violence, rape and restraining order cases are the backlog of domestic violence, rape and restraining order cases are
anything to go by. California, the only US state to institute a revenge anything to go by. California, the only US state to institute a revenge
porn law, did make two major prosecutions since it passed a law in porn law, did make two major prosecutions since it passed a law in
October, but only time will tell as to whether that was merely a PR October, but only time will tell as to whether that was merely a PR
flurry.flurry.
But there is ensuring that dust-jacketed legal tomes get more intimatelyBut there is ensuring that dust-jacketed legal tomes get more intimately
acquainted with the 21st century, and then there are the many ways to acquainted with the 21st century, and then there are the many ways to
catch a digital predator. Every time we institute a new law to deal withcatch a digital predator. Every time we institute a new law to deal with
a tech-specific violation, we take money, time and resources away from a tech-specific violation, we take money, time and resources away from
from helping the real victims in a really tangible way, something Sarah from helping the real victims in a really tangible way, something Sarah
Jeong, an editor of the Harvard Law and Gender Journal, argued when she wrote against the revenge porn law.Jeong, an editor of the Harvard Law and Gender Journal, argued when she wrote against the revenge porn law.
We already know how America feels about what’s under a woman’s skirt: We already know how America feels about what’s under a woman’s skirt:
obsessed. Why else would the Republicans choose to protest Obamacare obsessed. Why else would the Republicans choose to protest Obamacare
with that sinister ad featuringwith that sinister ad featuring
a lecherous Uncle Sam peering between a female patient’s gambs last a lecherous Uncle Sam peering between a female patient’s gambs last
year? Why else would women who choose to lift up their skirts with year? Why else would women who choose to lift up their skirts with
agency be so routinely slut-shamed?agency be so routinely slut-shamed?
Once upon a time, teenagers lifted their dad’s porn mags as a rite of Once upon a time, teenagers lifted their dad’s porn mags as a rite of
passage. Now, stealing women’s social media photos for the spank bank passage. Now, stealing women’s social media photos for the spank bank
stretches out way past adolescence. Sure, they’re in the public domain; stretches out way past adolescence. Sure, they’re in the public domain;
it’s not the same as upskirting without permission. But when it comes toit’s not the same as upskirting without permission. But when it comes to
image-making in the digital age, the key feminist concern should no image-making in the digital age, the key feminist concern should no
longer be mere objectification. WE should be concerned about agency.longer be mere objectification. WE should be concerned about agency.
At least the over-turning of the Massachusetts upskirt ruling will mean aAt least the over-turning of the Massachusetts upskirt ruling will mean a
woman can’t also be violated, if only someone can get the right woman can’t also be violated, if only someone can get the right
Instagrammable angle.Instagrammable angle.
Meanwhile,Meanwhile,
the seamless automation of our devices – from subway to cellphone the seamless automation of our devices – from subway to cellphone
to Facebook in mere seconds – can only lull those with a blurred to Facebook in mere seconds – can only lull those with a blurred
understanding of consent into a false sense of inhabiting a super understanding of consent into a false sense of inhabiting a super
highway freeman’s land. There, the only law that matters is the law of highway freeman’s land. There, the only law that matters is the law of
WiFi access.WiFi access.
The bicycle, the washing machine, and now the mobile phone: technology The bicycle, the washing machine, and now the mobile phone: technology
has long been the handmaiden of women’s rights. Striking out laws that has long been the handmaiden of women’s rights. Striking out laws that
allow innovation to rob women of their bodily autonomy is the only way allow innovation to rob women of their bodily autonomy is the only way
we can ensure that continues.we can ensure that continues.