Typical Liberal Thinking

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/mass-high-court-subway-upskirt-photos-not-illegal/

Whats up your skirt is public space. That is, the libs will throw you in prison for taking a pic of a cop eating a donut but its ok to take a pic of your crotch.

 

[PayDay]

I saw that one. Problem is 'Expectation of Privacy'

The Judges favored not applying existing law to this case to set a precedent, which is their right to do so.

They said the law doesn't apply under these circumstances (on a train), so therefore new legislation would be drafted and updated for todays technology.

So it's actually worse than it appears.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Do people actually get arrested for taking a picture of a cop eating a doughnut in a public place?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I saw that one. Problem is 'Expectation of Privacy'

The Judges favored not applying existing law to this case to set a precedent, which is their right to do so.

They said the law doesn't apply under these circumstances (on a train), so therefore new legislation would be drafted and updated for todays technology.

So it's actually worse than it appears.

Lets do a poll: DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT PRIVACY UP YOUR SKIRT? OR MUST YOU TRAVEL ABOUT IN RESTROOMS?

 

[PayDay]

Lets do a poll: DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT PRIVACY UP YOUR SKIRT? OR MUST YOU TRAVEL ABOUT IN RESTROOMS?

Right? The thing they must have used: "Well if I was sitting in a seat and you were standing, I could see it."

 

[Busybody]

Do people actually get arrested for taking a picture of a cop eating a doughnut in a public place?

yes

 

[about_average]

Lets do a poll: DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT PRIVACY UP YOUR SKIRT? OR MUST YOU TRAVEL ABOUT IN RESTROOMS?

So you want people to be found guilty of breaking laws they didn't break.

What part of:
'the defendant conducted such activity when the other person was in a place and circumstance where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being “so photographed”;'
do you not understand? People don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a train.

Sure, be outraged at how the law was written, but right now your outrage is completely misdirected.
Not that I expect you to get it.

 

[PayDay]

So you want people to be found guilty of breaking laws they didn't break.

What part of:
'the defendant conducted such activity when the other person was in a place and circumstance where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being “so photographed”;'
do you not understand? People don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a train.

Sure, be outraged at how the law was written, but right now your outrage is completely misdirected.
Not that I expect you to get it.

...but their vagina does.

My beef is all the news super perfect laws their going to write to make up the difference, using this 'personal privacy violation' as the juice.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So you want people to be found guilty of breaking laws they didn't break.

What part of:
'the defendant conducted such activity when the other person was in a place and circumstance where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being “so photographed”;'
do you not understand? People don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a train.

Sure, be outraged at how the law was written, but right now your outrage is completely misdirected.
Not that I expect you to get it.

I don't want your fucking camera up my ass.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Do people actually get arrested for taking a picture of a cop eating a doughnut in a public place?

Its the latest craze by the cops. Someone might see them in their cop uniform and alert the bad guys.

 

[about_average]

...but their vagina does.

Of course. But the law wasn't about vagina's.
The law was written about "people" & "persons", not vaginas.

I don't want your fucking camera up my ass.

Well, I was right about you not getting it.

And if you don't want cameras up your ass, quit using them for sex toys.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't want your fucking camera up my ass.

Quit showing it off and put some fucking pant's on.

You're butthurt indignation at this reminds me of the woman who runs around like this.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lLbyjMDbDLo/TLRquHsOfnI/AAAAAAAACz0/bnpnp2zTM-s/s400/larissa-riquelme-17-copy.jpg

And get's alllllllllllll kinds of pissed the fuck off when she catches Joe Shmucky eye fucking her tits.

"WHUT ARE YOU LOOKING AT HUA??"

If you don't want people to be able to see your ass then cover it the fuck up, problem solved!!!

 

[dan_c00000]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/mass-high-court-subway-upskirt-photos-not-illegal/

Whats up your skirt is public space. That is, the libs will throw you in prison for taking a pic of a cop eating a donut but its ok to take a pic of your crotch.

Another massive james fail:

The SJC ruling went on to suggest that the act in this case should be illegal, noting other states including New York and Florida have explicit laws criminalizing public upskirting.

The court said that the way the law is currently written the act is legal, however, if the law was re-written and/or a new law was passed it would be illegal.

Notice how us liberals can read.

 

[about_average]

Another massive james fail:

The SJC ruling went on to suggest that the act in this case should be illegal, noting other states including New York and Florida have explicit laws criminalizing public upskirting.

The court said that the way the law is currently written the act is legal, however, if the law was re-written and/or a new law was passed it would be illegal.

He'd rather have people go to jail for "breaking" non-existent laws.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Another massive james fail:

The SJC ruling went on to suggest that the act in this case should be illegal, noting other states including New York and Florida have explicit laws criminalizing public upskirting.

The court said that the way the law is currently written the act is legal, however, if the law was re-written and/or a new law was passed it would be illegal.

Notice how us liberals can read.

DAN? Youre not getting a glamour shot of my package. GET OVER IT!

 

[dan_c00000]

DAN? Youre not getting a glamour shot of my package. GET OVER IT!

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6603822592/h8EDC4F31/

 

[Aphro]

I think you do have the right to expect privacy of your own body on a public train. Yes, it's a public place, but that doesn't give anyone the right to shoot a photo up my skirt. Any more than you have a right to grab my ass or boob.

I doubt that the women involved in these photos were brazenly sitting across from the accused, legs akimbo, flashing him their bits and pieces for him to photograph.

If you have ever had to ride on very crowded public transit, you would understand how easy this would be to accomplish. The accused was likely sitting in a seat, with a skirted woman standing in front of him, many other passengers crowded around her, holding an overhead handhold or support post. Sitting there, I am sure it was no problem for him to lower his cellphone to below the hem of her skirt and snap a photo. I would bet this happens A LOT more often than people realize. It's like the picture equivalent of a guy copping a quick feel on a crowded subway. Any woman who has ever travelled reguarly on public transit has dealt with a straying hand or two, or been sitting uncomfortably close to a man who suddenly decides to start rubbing his thigh along your thigh so you have to stand up and move...this is just another version of that.

Whatever it is, it's wrong, law or no law.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think you do have the right to expect privacy of your own body on a public train. Yes, it's a public place, but that doesn't give anyone the right to shoot a photo up my skirt. Any more than you have a right to grab my ass or boob.

I doubt that the women involved in these photos were brazenly sitting across from the accused, legs akimbo, flashing him their bits and pieces for him to photograph.

If you have ever had to ride on very crowded public transit, you would understand how easy this would be to accomplish. The accused was likely sitting in a seat, with a skirted woman standing in front of him, many other passengers crowded around her, holding an overhead handhold or support post. Sitting there, I am sure it was no problem for him to lower his cellphone to below the hem of her skirt and snap a photo. I would bet this happens A LOT more often than people realize. It's like the picture equivalent of a guy copping a quick feel on a crowded subway. Any woman who has ever travelled reguarly on public transit has dealt with a straying hand or two, or been sitting uncomfortably close to a man who suddenly decides to start rubbing his thigh along your thigh so you have to stand up and move...this is just another version of that.

Whatever it is, it's wrong, law or no law.

You say it better than me or others. Women, especially, are entitled to the dignity of their person. I also believe youre entitled to the assistance of others to restore the dignity if an emergency comes along, just like the rendering of first aid.

 

[Aphro]

Any guys I catch trying to take photos up my skirt without my express permission will need first aid in the form of surgical removal of my fingernails from their eyesockets.

 

[koalabear]

This could lead to some interesting photo classes.

 

[zipman]

I think you do have the right to expect privacy of your own body on a public train. Yes, it's a public place, but that doesn't give anyone the right to shoot a photo up my skirt. Any more than you have a right to grab my ass or boob.

I doubt that the women involved in these photos were brazenly sitting across from the accused, legs akimbo, flashing him their bits and pieces for him to photograph.

If you have ever had to ride on very crowded public transit, you would understand how easy this would be to accomplish. The accused was likely sitting in a seat, with a skirted woman standing in front of him, many other passengers crowded around her, holding an overhead handhold or support post. Sitting there, I am sure it was no problem for him to lower his cellphone to below the hem of her skirt and snap a photo. I would bet this happens A LOT more often than people realize. It's like the picture equivalent of a guy copping a quick feel on a crowded subway. Any woman who has ever travelled reguarly on public transit has dealt with a straying hand or two, or been sitting uncomfortably close to a man who suddenly decides to start rubbing his thigh along your thigh so you have to stand up and move...this is just another version of that.

Whatever it is, it's wrong, law or no law.

Even worse, when women stick their ass out to rub against my crotch or they press their breasts against the soft tender flesh of my elbow on a crowded train.

They need to be stopped too!!!

 

[about_average]

Whatever it is, it's wrong, law or no law.

I haven't seen anyone claim it's not wrong, merely that you can't, or at least shouldn't, find someone guilty of breaking a law that doesn't exist.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Even worse, when women stick their ass out to rub against my crotch or they press their breasts against the soft tender flesh of my elbow on a crowded train.

They need to be stopped too!!!

I will speak sternly to these women. Where do you find them?

 

[XsNrg]

Any guys I catch trying to take photos up my skirt without my express permission will need first aid in the form of surgical removal of my fingernails from their eyesockets.

Excuse me but may I have permission?