A Victory for Peeping Toms

So let me explain it to them: there's a difference between being benignly leered at in public (such is life) and having your private parts photographed by some creepy scumbag against your will. Everybody knows that. Why don't these judges?

The law, as written, was interpreted correctly. It is not the job of judges to make decisions based on the way things should be. It is their job to decide based on what is existing law.

THe job of the LEGISLATURE is to fix the law, and they should do exactly that.

But you don't go about violating the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution, to put away someone who did not break the existing law.

Not even to put away someone who, obviously, richly deserves it.

I applaud the judges for realizing and respecting the limits to judicial power, and expect that the law will be corrected shortly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"So let me explain it to them: there's a difference between being benignly leered at in public (such is life) and having your private parts photographed by some creepy scumbag against your will."

If you don't want your private parts photographed when you're in public then keep them covered. I've never understood why women wear skirts and then get bothered by their crotches being exposed when they do things like get in or out of cars or sit in chairs. If you must wear a skirt then wear shorts underneath. If you want privacy then keep yourself covered. Otherwise please quit whining when people look at what you've put on display.

Yes, I'm an annoyed male. If I walked around dressed the way Britney Spears has I'd be arrested for indecent exposure, not just gossiped about in the tabloids and joked about on talk shows. This persistent double standard that says women are equal when they want to be but deserve special treatment when they want it is damned annoying, not to say hypocritical. It's not at all unreasonable to assume from that kind of behavior that women really are inferior. If they were equal they'd be able to take responsibility for their own actions.

If you don't want your crotch photographed when you're in public keep it covered - that's your responsibility. If you must wear a skirt then wear shorts underneath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Relax. As pointed out, the existing law was interpreted correctly. But you can bet that some congress-criter eager for publicity is drafting a brand new, un-constitutional law even as we speak.

And if we're really lucky, we'll waste millions on it as it ultimately makes its way up the chain to the Supreme Court.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if you want to maintain any bodily privacy and dignity while the American Taliban remains in power. Remember, The Decider has set out to create democracy in Iraq in our image. Mission accomplished (in a backasswards sorta way)!

Maybe now, they can stop hating us for our freedom, huh?

snrk!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In a culture that relies heavily on Voyeurism, real and imagined, as an engine of entertainment and profit, what is to be expected here? Papparazzi? Any number of programs on tv? YouTube?

Or are we to expect every female (or male) wearing a skirt to be accompanied by an Officer of the Law? Everyone is buying and using all these "cool" mini-cams, spy-cams and all sorts of basic camera equipment in droves. If we have eyes and instincts there will be voyeurism -- of the higher and Art oriented degree or of the lower and lowest degree. Only awareness helps. Let's not be Blind; a call to the Law here is an open invitation to more fascist rule.

The Eyes work in particular ways, no policeman can change this; and in this world where our instincts are forced, manipulated, channeled and diverted to all kinds of 'profitable' ends and where Integrity means little or nothing at all, it's up to each individual. An ex-girlfriend I once had used a great and under-appreciated expression in these kinds of things: "deal with it".

Unless, of course, we want to relegate everyone who decides to look at these kinds of things rather than the Mona Lisa or the Louvre or such is to be sentenced to Blindness. Legislation is not the right road; if liberty means anything it means each of us take responsibility for our own. Why invite the Lawyer and the Cop to walk with us everywhere we go?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

grandaughters, he would have had a tire iron up side his head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is not about sexual learing or personal privacy, even though they are off-shoots of the larger issue. The issue is what is the nature of privacy in public. Huge concern to photojournalists, yes even the sleezier paparazzi's have freedom of speech and expression and the right to photograph the world in public view is still and should always be one of them. The taste issue is real and of concern, but the legal right to do it is protected and should be. Where do those offended by the photographer's lens stop, otherwise?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would expect that in the short run community standards would bring about laws against people taking pictures of other people's "private parts". People will be facing jail sentences for violating the community standards. This is similar in nature, but not in extent, to the fundamental Islamic communities imposing their community standards.

It is understandable that people will feel uncomfortable with people pushing themselves into one's personal space. There should be a common sense law about not willingly and maliciously getting in anyone's personal space (face or back or side or under or above) in a jarring or intrusive manner.

If an excellent artist with an excellent photographic memory found someone's face or muscles or something else about another's body very appealing they could draw what they saw. Let non-artists use technology to make up for their shortcomings. Why discriminate against someone if their interest lies in a sexual thrill rather than art appreciation? There is no shortage of people who often longingly look or leer at other's muscles, or hair, or lips, or breasts, or buttocks, or genitals, etc. It can feel almost as uncomfortable as someone taking a snap. Intense unwanted desire can be uncomfortable, but while trying to encourage people to express and pursue their desires in ways that is less jarring or intrusive to others, we should not unreasonably condemn the desires and the desirers for having such desires. Over time, as one gets used to being desired, they can actually accept it as the compliment it is. However, if the desires are mixed in with a degrading attitude (rather than an admiring one), it remains uncomfortable. Hopefully, we will cultivate societies where degrading attitudes are shunned and rarely encountered.

Should a person be allowed to have camera's on a person's shoes? Why not?

When someone wearing a skirt walks under some stair cases they expose what is under the skirt to those under the stairs. Is it okay to photograph what one is being exposed to?

What if the person was not wearing anything under the skirt? The person would be in violation of nudity laws in many parts of this country.

The sooner people get comfortable with nudity (just like they are fine with nude statues or other art), the sooner we can be done with people willingly and maliciously getting into other people's personal space for a presumably intense sexual thrill of peeking under someone else's skirt. There will always be those sexually thrilled by taking close ups of other's genitals, just as there are many (but fewer than previous case) who are sexually thrilled by taking close ups of other's faces.

Some people feel they are harmed by someone snapping pictures of people's genitals or underwears with or without the subject's knowledge (without getting in one's personal space). I would rather blame the mental harm to those being photographed, on social conditioning to hide one's genitals or breasts or underwears, rather than on the perverted desires of the photographers. Perversion is not necessarily bad, but if and when nudity becomes the norm, hopefully such perversion will be seen as silly.

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That would seem consistent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I feel sorry for the girl who filed the suit. Imagine being 16 yrs old and getting such a harsh dose of the legal system's treatment of your ownership of your body.

Perhaps we should all copyright ourselves so we can at least charge the bastards who go around snapping those shots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all my life i have considered under my skirt to be "a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy," as the law says. and it still is. this ruling is utter nonsense.

this ruling is especially alarming in that it's a 34 year old man taking pictures of a minor. doesn't this make a mockery of child porn laws? it's ok if it's a stranger but not if she knew him?

most alarming of all is how all the misogynists, many who think they're good liberals and are totally blind to their ignorance, come out whenever there's a story about rights that really only concern women. boys don't wear skirts so who cares? if it was a teenage boy's nuts hanging out of his shorts at the beach the guys would be screaming bloody murder over the violation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What one does in their home is granted every protection in terms of privacy.

For example, a couple can have sex inside their home and expect their privacy to be protected. In this case, Peeping Toms are in violation of the law.

However, if a couple make love in a cornfield, for example, they have no expectation of privacy.

In this case, anyone who witnesses the sex act in the cornfield becomes just that, a witness.

I guess the real question is was the young woman harmed by the chump who took the photos?

(Was that question asked during the court proceedings?)

I don't know the answer to that question, but it would seem to me that she was harmed, especially when one considers her age.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear god. The absence of moral balance and even of common sense in some of the men's comments here is beyond alarming. It's terrifying that so many can think that what this pervert did is just fine and that these idiot judges were right-on. Especially aouie01, crmcvin, talkville, ahmlco, and aethr. (If any of you are actually women, not men as I assume, then you are even viler than they are because as women you should effing know better.)

These pictures weren't snapped from a distance, or even by standing up and viewing at eye level. The creep had to stoop down and place a camera between someone's legs and/or underneath her garments. How in bloody hell do you conclude that there is anything "public" about what is COVERED BY CLOTHING???

This was sexual violation, pure and simple.

Let me stick a camera down your pants and take a picture. Then we'll see how you feel when I claim I was just viewing and recording what was "publicly available". You would, justifiably, feel violated and want the judicial system to provide redress.

With warped thinking such as has been expressed by several of the comments posted here, it is no wonder young girls and women continue to be sexually violated and outright raped--and then get blamed for it. It is no wonder the perpetrators continue to get a slap on the wrist or no consequence whatsoever. It is no wonder females continue to have such an uphill climb in this crazy, perverse society.

Seldom have I felt as hopeless as I do at this moment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just kidding.
But seriously, though I don't approve of a perverts right to do whatever he/she wants (how many male AND female school teachers had sexual relations with their young students this year??), I don't think this was an attack on women in the courts.
I agree with the author that people are predictably weird and that it is a little frightening when society seems to permit unethical, morally repugnant behavior.
Then again, all you have to do is watch the news for five minutes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know what the girl did, but I woulda kicked him in the nads! And I woulda been justified.
We're merely protecting the right of men to be a-holes, imo.
We want our kids to "grow up" but when that doesn't happen we tolerate their childish behavior by using some stupid law which protects their stupid behaviors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't that where that jackoff inhofe is from? 'Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and it all started with cigarettes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think a woman or a woman is entitled to common decency and modesty in public. I think the law definitely needs to be modified if the idiots on this court made a ruling like this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think a man or a woman is entitled to common decency and modesty in public. I think the law definitely needs to be modified if the idiots on this court made a ruling like this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the man was not black. not chicano. not oriental. certainly wasn't mediterranean.

unless oklahoma allows 16 year olds to marry, the girl was underage. but that doesn't matter. as the charming phrase goes: if it's old enough to bleed, it's old enough to slaughter.

in this culture, a white man, as long as he doesn't injure a richer white man or a white man's property, can break the law with complete impunity. especially if he is violating a woman of any color. (in california, in the mid-90s, a man with a long history of drunk driving arrests killed two pedestrians while driving drunk--a woman and her teenaged daugher; the jury actually found him guilty; the white male judge vacated the jury's verdict and allowed him to walk out of court a free man. it was reported in two inches on a back page of the newspaper.)

i have known very few white men who do not consider that every woman on earth was put here for their convenience (black men are aware that even now, any attention they pay to white women could get them hurt). the typical white man passes judgement on every woman he sees; he believes any woman alone in public is available. he thinks any woman's body is a commodity. he thinks any attention he pays to a woman, no matter how rude, insulting, unwanted, or even sadistic, should be appreciated, with gratitude. any woman saying this is, of course, paranoid and a man-hating lunatic.

this is not surprising--the semitic religions all state that the first human words spoken were 'the woman made me do it.'

and until 'decent' men start protesting this attitude and behavior, it is not going to change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having been peeped THRICE.. I have to say that its one thing to be oogled at in public and quite another to have someone taking an upskirt photograph of you to masturbate to later.

Not to fear monger, but with technology getting so nano-functional these days.. you may even need to worry at a public beach. How sad that you can't walk your daughters on the boardwalk in a sundress anymore because A FEW ASININE MEN have lost their goddam manners and have forfeited their role as protectors. (I'm talking about those judges!)

Here are some places to avoid:
- rest stops along the Jersey shore. For some reason.. jersey is also peeper-friendly. I was in a bathroom once and a guy dressed in drag was snapping shots of girls in adjacent toilet stalls.

- Dont walk close to subway stairs. Peepers like to hang out by the stairs seemingly reading a paper or txting a friend. then when you walk by they go down the stairs a little and snap upskirt pics.

- Don't wear short skirts in a nightclub. A friend of mine was FINGERED (no joke) at nightclub by a 2-man team. One guy bought her a drink and put the shot just out of reach so she'd have to lean across the bar to retrieve it. His buddy would then move in for the thrill.

- when going into a dormitory with a stairwell with an open middle. Stay against the walls. I've had guys follow me into dorms and upskirt me in the stairwell as I've ascended stairs after tennis practice.

- DONT WEAR SKIRTS! They cant upskirt you if you're not wearing a skirt. Sorry boys, no skirts for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I'm not mistaken, at least when I was back in jounalism school, concerning shooters in california, one can not take a picture beyond the reasonable scope of what the public "sees." For an example, one would not be able to legally shoot someone in their backyard with a lens that portrays the scene different than what a person from a public vantage point would see without special equipment.

That said, it would make an upskirt image illegal. Furthermore, such a law and ruling would be both logical, and reasonable to understand for most people. Had the shooter taken an image capturing the moment a seated woman crossed her legs showing her private parts, the courts could conceivably be in a bind over a decision, but as the situation in question is understood, he, the shooter, acted willfully to capture an image a reasonable person in public would not normally see or witness.

I don't know the laws in Oklahoma, but I did find the article to be ridiculous since it didn't present a legal counter argument for the author's position. She also didn't present the reasoning behind the ruling with any sense of clarity.

Shame on Alternet for publishing such crap.

It's bad enough that the press has a lower trust rating than our current presidency, but even more sad when a supposedly alternative media outlet perpetuates such a view.

I found too much of the commentary to reflect the low standard of the article (reactionist bantor) in question such that, for the most part, I read comment after comment of American Talibanistic thinking followed by reactionist American Talibanistic thinking--the foundation of a polarizing society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I,think if it's ok for a guy to photograph a woman up her skirt,it should be ok if I bust him upside his head!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no constitutional right to immodesty.

Welcome to the real world, girls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is one or the other.

On the same page as this lead, was an article about women's fight for "equality" with men. Well men are not demanding the special protection from "scumbags" with cameras. Yes, biology has something to do with it, but special protection is special protection. Don't demand perfect equality and special protection. You will lose, just like you have always lost. Even if women get together and vote themselves what they want, using their electoral clout. You will not enforce anything against men unless men cooperate. And you can forget cooperation if you not just equal, but "more equal" than men-- just because your tender sensibilities are offended by people taking pics of what you show in public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I propose that all women in America stop wearing skirts and dresses unless said skirt/dress is ankle length and not slit.

It's hard to take upskirt pictures if there's no skirt to up.

No shorts either unless said short is at least mid-thigh and close-fitting.

If you are required to wear a skirt/dress for your job and the skirt is short, wear your ugliest granny panties. And change into pants before leaving the worksite. Save your pretty underwear for when you're wearing pants or at home where apparently we can expect not to be peeped.

Finally, if some guy does get into your personal space and sticks a camera under your skirt, KICK HIS ASS!! BEAT HIM FOR AS LONG AS YOU CAN!!

And guys, if you know other guys who like to do this, please beat them for us. It's called social control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Societies can uphold culture only by respecting human relationship. When laws are made for freedom there ends all signs of culture. Freedom does not mean absence of restrictions, it should incorporate respect for human relationship. Or else, people look to other ways of association. Since the human mind essentially is not the product of the systems that have taken hold any of the civilization, its best expression, its culture can be had only in relationship with the System that has been responsible for its existence. The mind loses its culture when it gets taken over by the systems that we make as part of our civilizations. That is what is happening in many parts. It is foolish and even idiocy to say that we make our own culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i meant to write 'i have NOT just seen movies, i have read books.'

having corrected myself, i will also take the opportunity to add this: 'you women'?? i am one person--not an entire gender.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]