Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Up-Skirts OKFollow

#1 Mar 06 2014 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Some guy on the Boston Subway was taking pics up the skirts of women, unbeknownst to the women of course. I suppose men too if they were wearing skirt. STORY

Anyways, a judge said that this activity did not violate state law.

I ask you if a young woman were to take an upskirt selfie and send it to, oh i dunno, anyone really - would it be considering sexting?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Mar 06 2014 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
I'm hiring a camera crew and vacationing in Boston. I'll call it a traffic report war to liberate people an undercover fashion shoot.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 12:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Mar 06 2014 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, it may not violate state law there. There's other states where people have been convicted for it. We need one of those "age of consent" style sites where you can easily research which states will allow you to take secret hoo-hah photos on the bus.

Without reading the case in question, I assume that the judge does not condone the behavior but is simply noting that the state legislature hasn't kept up with technology in this regard and there's not a Mass state law that applies to the defendant's behavior. The solution there seems fairly obvious (big government!)

I hate the pseudo-word "sexting" and refuse to dignify your last question with an answer out of protest.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Mar 06 2014 at 11:20 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Some guy on the Boston Subway was taking pics up the skirts of women, unbeknownst to the women of course. I suppose men too if they were wearing skirt. STORY

Anyways, a judge said that this activity did not violate state law.

I ask you if a young woman were to take an upskirt selfie and send it to, oh i dunno, anyone really - would it be considering sexting?


That is ****** up, creepy and sad. But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#5 Mar 06 2014 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Looking at the Google links I provided, I see another case where an Indiana man was convicted on child exploitation charges for taking upskirts of minors at the mall and it was overturned in appeals. Since the law requires the images of the children to depict them acting "sexually" and the upskirt photos were just, you know, upskirt photos, there wasn't a basis for the sexual behavior component.

So, I dunno... tell your daughters to wear underwear, I guess. Clean underwear, too.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Mar 06 2014 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
Saw that, struck me as some overly literal interpenetration of a law that allowed for this to be suddenly okay. I got the feeling that any loophole would be quickly closed though, as the spirit of the law was to try and prevent things like this, but that it was perhaps just worded poorly.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#7 Mar 06 2014 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?


They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will. Smiley: oyvey That's a seriously messed up question.


The police had set up a sting to catch the guy...only to be told the activity wasn't illegal. Smiley: lol Man, they must be *******






Edited, Mar 6th 2014 6:31pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#8 Mar 06 2014 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Inch for inch, are skirts significantly colder than legged garments covering the same area? Pants for full length skirts, shorts for minskirts, whatever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 06 2014 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,342 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Looking at the Google links I provided, I see another case where an Indiana man was convicted on child exploitation charges for taking upskirts of minors at the mall and it was overturned in appeals. Since the law requires the images of the children to depict them acting "sexually" and the upskirt photos were just, you know, upskirt photos, there wasn't a basis for the sexual behavior component.

So, I dunno... tell your daughters to wear underwear, I guess. Clean underwear, too.

Punchline to an reeeeaaally olde joke wrote:
HAHA! I fooled them! I didn't wear underwear today!!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#10 Mar 06 2014 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Punchline to an reeeeaaally olde joke wrote:
HAHA! I fooled them! I didn't wear underwear today!!
Can't be that old, I remember it from Paul Reuban's stage act.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Mar 06 2014 at 11:36 AM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Inch for inch, are skirts significantly colder than legged garments covering the same area? Pants for full length skirts, shorts for minskirts, whatever.


Yes. They are quite drafty, until you start hitting floor length with 2-3 layers of petticoats and flounce ala the 19th century.

In the winter I always have on leggings underneath skirts of any length.

Pressure is now on MA legislature to amend the law to explicitly say that photographs of deliberately hidden clothing from unusual angles are also included, or some such.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#12 Mar 06 2014 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?


They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will. Smiley: oyvey That's a seriously messed up question.


The police had set up a sting to catch the guy...only to be told the activity wasn't illegal. Smiley: lol Man, they must be *******


Oh come on. How could anyone take that question as serious.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#13 Mar 06 2014 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?


They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will. Smiley: oyvey That's a seriously messed up question.


The police had set up a sting to catch the guy...only to be told the activity wasn't illegal. Smiley: lol Man, they must be *******


Oh come on. How could anyone take that question as serious.

This took place back in 2010. It may not have been wintertime when the photographer was collecting upskirts.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#14 Mar 06 2014 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
Elinda wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
But why are women wearing skirts this time of year? Isn't it cold in Boston?


They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will. Smiley: oyvey That's a seriously messed up question.


The police had set up a sting to catch the guy...only to be told the activity wasn't illegal. Smiley: lol Man, they must be *******


Oh come on. How could anyone take that question as serious.

This took place back in 2010. It may not have been wintertime when the photographer was collecting upskirts.
This took 4 years to come to trial? Smiley: confused
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#15 Mar 06 2014 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This verdict was by the state supreme court so it must have gone through multiple trials.

Nothing like spending four years of your life on legal challenges just to see a grainy dark photo of some random woman's panties.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Mar 06 2014 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
No kidding, his internet must have been down or something.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Mar 06 2014 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
I think the "getting away with it" aspect is the larger part of that particular fetish, along with imagining how hurt/angry/humiliated she would be if only she knew.

Bet it loses some of its appeal now that it's legal.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#18 Mar 06 2014 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
They're sluts and are asking for it. Feel free to rape, pillage and photograph at will.

Just so long as they weren't drunk, right?

Probably shouldn't be illegal. The wording of the law will have to be close to absurd because conceptually it's fairly absurd for this to be a crime. Someone photographs you weeping as you find out your child was killed: perfectly fine. Someone takes a photo of the magical forbidden clothing you're wearing, well that's jail time, buddy. Because: ***? I guess? Same forbidden clothing near the ocean in summer...perfectly fine. It's idiotic.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Mar 06 2014 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
Couldn't you at least make some kind of harassment claim, or disrupting the peace, or something? I mean public place and all, but still you'd think there'd be some kind of other options.

Well, assuming you caught the person doing it of course...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Mar 06 2014 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Couldn't you at least make some kind of harassment claim, or disrupting the peace, or something? I mean public place and all, but still you'd think there'd be some kind of other options.

Wear pants? Pass a law making any photo of a person without their consent in advance illegal? Or just use the current standard that you have no real expectation of privacy on a @#%^ing subway. The whole premise is bizarre to me. Criminalizing the taking of an image of a body part exposed in a public place? The ****? Yeah, it's creepy behavior, yes it breaks the social contact. So does marching around yelling that the Jews control everything or that Obama is going to send yer gunz to Kenya or whatever, but we protect those things, because erring on the side of allowing things that make us uncomfortable is preferable to criminalizing things based on perceived intent. Thoughtcrime is a foolish standard.

Edited, Mar 6th 2014 2:45pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Mar 06 2014 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
If you know they're doing it, I believe you can deny consent for the photo.

I'm thinking that if they called the place up inside a skirt, or even down inside the pants, a private place, then a person could reasonably be expected not to be photographed there.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#22 Mar 06 2014 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I'm thinking that if they called the place up inside a skirt, or even down inside the pants, a private place, then a person could reasonably be expected not to be photographed there.

So, if you wear a bikini on the subway, it's fine to take a picture of that. If you wear a dress, now it's illegal. Sure, that sounds reasonable and easily enforceable. Already a crime to reach into someone's pants or skirt, and reasonable and easy to enforce. This wouldn't be. Is it a crime if a woman lifts her skirt up and laughs to her friends and a stranger takes a picture, or only if he has to expend thought or effort to take the picture. Shoecam illegal, but google glass record of what his eyes could see anyway legal?

It's a ******* quagmire. "This makes me uncomfortable" shouldn't be the standard for criminalizing behaviour.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#23 Mar 06 2014 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
A bikini is different fabric than granny panties. It's (in theory) a more opaque material, and was designed to be outer wear. Most women don't go around wearing bikinis underneath their clothes, at least not the sorts of women who would object to up-skirts in the first place.

You never know what else a woman has going on underneath the skirt besides panties, too. What if she has a colostomy bag? What if she is menstruating? Those are medical privacy violations, not just physical clothing ones. Some women are required by their religions to wear skirts and pants are not an option (oddly enough, most sects of Islam are totally okay with pants and it tends to be Christian sects that require skirts)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#24 Mar 06 2014 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
I never really got skirts anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#25 Mar 06 2014 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
It is squicky, but forbidding it is getting into serious diva behavior.

Edited to add:

Quote:
(oddly enough, most sects of Islam are totally okay with pants and it tends to be Christian sects that require skirts)


Not that odd. Modesty is what's required, and that is culturally defined.

What I like about Islam vis-a-vis Christianity is that modesty is equally required of men and women, on paper at least.


Edited, Mar 6th 2014 12:06pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Mar 06 2014 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
You never know what else a woman has going on underneath the skirt besides panties, too. What if she has a colostomy bag? What if she is menstruating? Those are medical privacy violations, not just physical clothing ones

No, they aren't. No more than taking a picture of a person in a wheelchair is.

There's just nothing magic about a ****** when it's ******* covered by clothes. It's stupid to pretend there should be.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)