Upskirt Photos Don't Violate A Woman's Privacy, Rules D.C. Judge

http://www.huffingtonp​ost.com …s-legal-dc_n_5966406.html

On Sept. 4, Washington, D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna dismissed charges against Christopher Cleveland who was accused of taking pictures up women's skirts without their consent or knowledge at the Lincoln Memorial. Judge McKenna ruled that no person could "have a reasonable expectation of privacy" when "clothed and positioned" in the manner in which these women were in a public space (sitting on steps in a skirt).

Here's the ruling


https://www.scribd.com​/mobile/doc/242476116

Hmmm... I see a rash of slapped faces in the future.

2n10 wrote in post #17207853
Hmmm... I see a rash of slapped faces in the future.

I'm seeing broken cameras.

Legality and Morality/Appropriatene​ss are not always the same. He hadn't quite crossed the Legal line, but...........why go there.....

rick_reno wrote in post #17207812
http://www.huffingtonp​ost.com …s-legal-dc_n_5966406.html

On Sept. 4, Washington, D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna dismissed charges against Christopher Cleveland who was accused of taking pictures up women's skirts without their consent or knowledge at the Lincoln Memorial. Judge McKenna ruled that no person could "have a reasonable expectation of privacy" when "clothed and positioned" in the manner in which these women were in a public space (sitting on steps in a skirt).

Here's the ruling


https://www.scribd.com​/mobile/doc/242476116

What a strange case, lol. One must read the ruling carefully, it isn't a case of someone shoving a camera under someone's dress and taking pictures or something like that. It appears to be something akin to someone standing under stairs or something like that. So the ruling sounds reasonable. I don't think that is jail worthy.

That said, that dude is friggin creepy. One can hope someone slaps him a few times (not assault, mind you, I don't wish anyone physical harm, but geesh!). What is with people? Sometimes one just has to hang their head in shame at humanity.

This should result in GoPro releasing the shoe cam.

This could have all new meaning in Scotland!

Hmmm.... So is it just women? Over 18? Does the same ruling apply if it's a child under 18? My opinion... Very bad ruling...

LisaBlue85 wrote in post #17208693
Hmmm.... So is it just women? Over 18? Does the same ruling apply if it's a child under 18? My opinion... Very bad ruling...

I'm pretty sure that pictures of Children's private parts are covered by other legislation. Even to the point of mothers breastfeeding in Texas being taken to court and losing their kids.

Unfortunately commonsense can't be used as a legal argument.

I've deleted a few posts in this thread.
I am very open to this conversation and the ramifications it has on photographers.

I am not however open to peoples opinions on if a woman deserves poor treatment based on how she is dressed. I grew up in an era where a certain number of the population had similar views on rape. @ 6 years of age hearing this, I was mature and conscious enough to recognize this argument as COMPLETELY WRONG by any standard.

40 plus years later, that sort of talk is not going to fly on this forum.

^ Like!

Well said.

WhidbeyHiker wrote in post #17208700
I'm pretty sure that pictures of Children's private parts are covered by other legislation. Even to the point of mothers breastfeeding in Texas being taken to court and losing their kids.

Unfortunately commonsense can't be used as a legal argument.

Photos were taken pointed up skirts, no mention of private parts. I would imagine most were wearing underwear as do most children under 18... My thinking is, if it's okay to take pictures up an 18-60 year olds skirt, would the same apply to under 18? To say that anyone in a dress or skirt has to accept that someone might take an inappropriate picture & expect & accept that is ridiculous. They didn't ask for it, nor do I think they expect it. I think this ruling is definitely a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

LisaBlue, there are instances of inappropriate touching of females without consent that are charged as child molestation if the female is under 18 and as sexual battery if she's older, at least where I live. So the age of the girl/woman makes a difference in some related laws. The rules can vary by jurisdiction, and case law is constantly changing them.

LisaBlue85 wrote in post #17208791
Photos were taken pointed up skirts, no mention of private parts. I would imagine most were wearing underwear as do most children under 18... My thinking is, if it's okay to take pictures up an 18-60 year olds skirt, would the same apply to under 18? To say that anyone in a dress or skirt has to accept that someone might take an inappropriate picture & expect & accept that is ridiculous. They didn't ask for it, nor do I think they expect it. I think this ruling is definitely a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

I don't disagree with anything you said, we aren't arguing about this. My point is that the concept of common sense apparently is too ambiguous for our legal system.

WhidbeyHiker wrote in post #17208877
I don't disagree with anything you said, we aren't arguing about this. My point is that the concept of common sense apparently is too ambiguous for our legal system.

Definitely true! I misunderstood! Thought you meant common sense of the "women". Sorry about that! I think we've become so obsessed with being "politically correct", legally correct & "everything else correct", that what's right & wrong just doesn't get put into the equation.