March 12, 2008
-
Peeping Tom
A court ruled that it is not against the law for a man to use a camera to take photos up the skirt of a 16-year-old girl.
The man took photos up the girl’s skirt at Target. The man followed the “girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt. According to the court, “the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Here is the link: Link
Do you think pointing a camera up a girl’s skirt violates her reasonable expectation of privacy?
Comments (165)
first!
hell yea.
YES!
uh….YES!!!!
yes – that’s just sick
Dan, you can’t be serious in asking this. Yes, she deserves privacy!
-Guru on the Hill
Um, yes.
Wow, yes that violates her reasonable expectation of privacy. Perhaps she just tried to nail him on the wrong offense.
Yes.
And you just KNOW someone on here is going to say “no.”
http://www.xanga.com/Charity333/646739922/horton-hears-a-who-modernday-parable-on-abortion.html?nextdate=last
Yes, assuming it isn’t a duck dress.
Yeah.
Umm Just because I wear a skirt doesn’t mean I should automatically expect a person to look up it.
Yes, without doubt.
Um, yes. What is with this judge? Does he do the same thing?
absolutely does. The judge and the perpetrator are both total gits.
How short of a skirt are we talking, here?
yeah, i guess.
dude. yeah.
yes thats gross
uh, yes.
duh.
awesome pic btw.
of course, but I see how they can argue that while the crime violates the spirit of the law, it technically doesn’t violate the letter of the law because of the way the law was written. I sure hope they reword it soon though
Yes
Either that judge is a complete moron or that guy’s defense attorney is AMAZING.
she does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because she is wearing a skirt? that’s obsurd. that is a ridiculous ruling.
Note to self: never move to Oklahoma City.
And they say the citizens should trust the legal system to carry out justice…
YES!!!
Um, yes. Duh. I put clothes on for a reason. TO COVER MY BUSINESS. Now if I’m the dumbass that bends over and moons you or pulls a Britney Spears getting in and out of my car sans panties… well then, that’s my fault. But this situation. Give me a break. Yes. VIOLATION galore.
what a messed up court! thats just sick!
What?!? That is so stupid. It’s not like he was taking a picture of her face from across the store- he was right there invading her personal space. And up the skrit? Lock him up and throw away the key.
might as well say placing a lighter at that place doesn’t violate privacy
Yes. No doubt about it.
Yes, it is a violation of a woman’s privacy. I’d be sure to “accidentally” trip over that jerk and step on him where it counts.
Yes!
I think it should be legal for men to take photos up young girls skirts.
I also think it should be legal to beat the shit out of those men when they are caught.
If possible, the girl could attempt to insert the camera up the photographer’s ass, but actually, people who are into upskirt peep pics might enjoy that.
Let the father/brother/boyfriend handle it instead.
I don’t think the man did was right, however, if you wear something in public that shows or has the potential to show any part of the body and wouldn’t be considered as public indecency for doing such, then the fact is that you’re simply opening yourself up for this risk, and I think that’s why the court ruled as such.
It’s kind of the same as girls wearing skimpy outfits that draw attention out in public and then whining that guys treat them as pieces of meat and are always looking at them or whatever. I don’t see any reason that girls can’t wear as much clothing as guys do if they don’t want to be looked at, so, I don’t really see any excuse to this argument. Is it necessarily right that guys do this? I don’t believe so, but the fact that it’s not doesn’t keep it from happening. Therefore, if you don’t want it looked at, then either don’t expose yourself or just deal with it.
God Bless,
Chris
Where is the picture by the way? I really need to inspect the evidence.
was it so short that she should not expect the privacy? or is what is under a skirt not private to begin with? in which case perhaps women will stop wearing skirts all together…
A skirt does mean easy access. Anyone could go there, not just a camera man. A rapist, a boyfriend, etc. It is wrong, but the short short skirts girls wear nowadays reveal too much, esp when they bend down to pick something up.
Yeah… of course.
You know, the parents of the girl can still file federal charges of child pornography, since she’s legally too young to consent to that photo. Theres no way he can get out of that one.
She was asking for it.
yes
Uh, yes!? That’s gross.
Absolutely I do. People expect the area underneath their clothes to be a place of privacy where eyes are not looking. That’s the whole purpose of clothes. I guess now women have to wear shorts under their skirts. This ruling makes no sense to me.
yeah… that’s why everyone should wear jump suits.
I think I would turned around and punted both the phone and the guy’s head into the middle of next week. then I would go for the judge’s head next. might knock some sense into him.
but.. i think if someone is wearing a short skirt… they’re wanting the attention anyway, and i don’t feel sorry for the dag-gon slut. but if she was wearing a long ankle or knee length skirt… that’s uncalled for.
@k8tthelate - yeah, but i think you’d end up going to jail… and would be violated in ways unknown to the outside civilization….
Yes of course!
I think that a woman can reasonably assume that no one will be taking pictures up her skirt without her permission – regardless of where she is!
Of course.
That’s the craziest thing I ever heard! A woman should be able to expect that no one would follow her and aim a camera up her skirt!
Maybe those chucklehead Muslims are right, Burkas for all women!
Last I checked, up-the-skirt was still a private area. Who are these people, and what did they hit their heads on?
What was the judge smoking?
…Uh, YES it freakin’ violates her reasonable expectation of privacy…. this is stupid.
UH, DUH!!!
Anyone sticks a camera up my skirt and they’ll be retrieving the camera from a netheregions of their bowels.
Hell yes, what was that judge smoking?
Most definitely!!!!
YES!
yes
Yes, duh.
That’s insane! What’s up with this crazy judge anyway? Sounds like he might enjoy doing the same thing. Well girls you can either wear pants like I do or you can wear shorts under so the perverts won’t catch anything that they shouldn’t.
yes, that’s just sick
What that man did was ridiculous and wrong. No one has the right to take a picture under someone’s skirt.
Depends – what does the property owner say?
If Target wants to prosecute the guy, they should be fully within their rights to do so.
The girl, however, doesn’t have any right to bring suit.
wow….I couldn’t see how it would not be illegal, possibly they need to go for a different approach. I hope this is not in the US. This would be sad :0(
Btw, what’s so wrong about up-the-skirt photos in themselves? It’s just a bit of your thighs – if you’re wearing underwear, nothing else is showing, and it will probably be too dark to see much anyway.
I’m much more concerned about people taking pictures through my windows.
Fuck yeah! That judge was a moron.
I hope someone doesn’t do that to his daughter and how to explain to her why that guy won’t get into trouble.
Xo
re-tar-ded. well, i guesse i will never be able to go back to my kilt wearing days..
Courts are incompetent pieces of crap.
Of course! I mean if she wanted someone to see what was under her skirt, she wouldn’t of worn on. People wear skirts and shit to cover up that area… thats fucking stupid, I would of punched the judge people in the face and taken a picture up their clothes.
hahaha… i wanna hire the lawyer that got this peeping tom creep free….
I don’t know how short said skirt was, but regardless, that is definitely a violation!
wait…wait…wait….waitttttt minute…., they don’t even allow security cameras in restrooms… how is a camera under the stall, allowed?
YES!
Rather.
I don’t think she wore the skirt expecting people to look up it.
Holy cow, Yes! You know what else bothers me? Reflective floors.
She’s sixteen. My age. That in itself constitutes as child pornography, does it not?
To me, this is the same thing as saying, “Girls who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.” I agree that, if you have any respect for yourself or anyone else, you should wear enough to cover your goods, regardless of your sex. But if you choose not to, that doesn’t entitle someone else to take physical advantage of you.
Even though I find myself pondering the length of her skirt, I’d still be outraged if it were shorter than most. As a teen, it’s hard to buy skirts or shorts that fit well; we’re cajoled into buying shorter bottoms. I know I have the choice to just not buy them, and I usually don’t, but… it’s hot here in Texas.
That was a tad off topic.
Heck yes…..they should take his camera and stick it as far up his ass as possible….this is one weird world where perverts can get away with just about anything….next peeping toms will be allowed to watch you through your windows…….
…. yes…
Oh, for crying out loud. Yes!
the skirts opening is exposed to the ground, so no.
if he somehow managed to build a camera robot that crawls up pants legs, then it would be yes.
it’s disgusting what he did, but it’s still exposed to the ground.
that’s one reason I don’t wear skirts.
yep!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s definitely an invasion of privacy but think of it this way, If the girl wasn’t wearing a really short skirt in the first place that would’ve never happened.
Well, that’s Asia for you.
Actually, that’s Oklahoma for you. Sorry. I saw the asian crap on that pic, so I assumed it was an Asian thing. Plus, Targets are EVERYWHERE.
Of course…this is ludicrous. These are probably the same guys who when they were a little boys put mirrors on their shoes and stood next to the girls during recess to take a peek. The creep!
Wow, that’s crazy. Of course it is reasonable to expect that people wont be looking up our skirts.
Isn’t the spot of air beneath her skirt a physical location where a “reasonable expectation of privacy” can be expected to exist?
By strict imterpretation of the law, no. Should the law be revised? Of course.
OK, I just read the article, and it’s even more disturbing than I thought. This was the Oklahoma State Court of Criminal Appeals, and four of the five judges ruled in favor of perverts everywhere and the victimization of women. The one sane judge called the ruling “interesting and disturbing.”
YES….isn’t it illegal to photograph minors sexually? I would say up a girls skirt has only one intent, and since when do you have to be in a certain “place” to call your private areas not private??? If they are covered up they are private! This is ridiculous!
show me someone who says no, and i’m punching them. haha [other than the judge because he's an idiot, and it's wrong to hit mentally retarded people.]
yes
You’re kidding right? Of course it violates her privacy.
So we’re talking about a law prohibiting anonymous Internet posting, but if anyone wants to upskirt that’s just cool.
Boy, am I having fun.
@theslayer1992 - I know what you mean there. How about how hard it is to buy shirts that aren’t so thin they reveal your bra? I have to wear a lot of black or brown to prevent the “see-through” effect.
Wow. Duh!
@LifeNeedsProtection -
Someone did that to me in High School. I just about decked him. Lucky son of a gun was a fast bugger – I couldn’t catch up to him.
Yes, actually. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in Target!
The judge should have asked himself if he would mind if someone in Target took pictures up his daughter’s skirt.
WTH!!!! it’s SUPA PERV
YES
for sure!
So if I go to Target with a skirt on, its acceptable to assume someone will see my underwear, because I shouldnt be expecting privacy.
But if I go to Target, WITHOUT a skirt on, and someone sees my underwear…I could potentially be arrested for indecent exposure?
Somethings seriously wrong with THAT picture.
YES.
Hmm, that ad is written in Korean.
ABSOLUTELY!
duh…
damn right it does! creepy perv!
What kind of question is that??? YES!
Uhm, yeah? The reason the skirt covers her panties is because she doesn’t want weird guy seeing them.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s pure invasion of a girl’s privacy!!!!!
YES. My god.
uh yea I’d slap the crap out of that guy
Yes, because she is dressed in a skirt and not walking around in her underwear. This is where one may think there is a fine line between privacy and decency. For the act of photographing up her skirt in hopes of catching a glimpse of something more, it is invasion of privacy. I don’t care where you are. She did not give the man permission to do so and did not pose for him. When we get dressed, we expect that our bodies and person will remain private and hidden from view. It is unreasonable to think otherwise. But my question is this. According to this ruling, does that state a precedence somehow for men to “shark” underaged girls? For those of you who may not know the term, it is where an individual will sneek up behind their victims and move articles of clothing in such a way as to expose the victim so they may be photographed in whatever stage of undress they are after exposure. This happens in public as well. I believe that when we are in public, we expect not to be disrobed and expect that others will leave our dignity intact. The fact that the girl was underage opens a whole new can of worms as to what this ruling can set a precedent for. That is what appalls me.
It amounts to filming porn, therefore it is stupid, just like porn is stupid in the first place.
This is just stupid, of course she had a reasonable expectation to privacy
YES!!!!!!!!!
Good God yes.
Fricking perverts. >:(
wow…sick perv!!!
Uh, yeah.
Duh.
Yes of course, and that judge is a retard.
I think more information needs to be provided before I can provide an appropriate response.
~Cheers.
WHAT THE FREAK. OF COURSE!
Fuck this makes me so mad.
Another blow against women.
Fuck the legal system. What’s next? Women who “entice” rapists?
Disgusting! YES!
uhhh yea..
it doesnt matter where you are, that judge needs to be slapped…
If she’s under 18, then yes, as she’s a minor. But over 18.. eh, I’m not so sure. I don’t think so.
I am disappointed greatly in our government sometimes. Some things are so blatantly obvious that there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind what the right thing to do is.
Yes!!!! Who wrote that law because it’s very stupid. It’s so obvious it violates the girl’s privacy.
Yes, and of cos. !@#$%^& the those “peeping tom”.
they need to change that law’s wording. It shouldn’t be “a PLACE where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy,” but rather “any time she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Since she took sufficient means to achieve privacy under normal circumstances, she thus has a reasonable expectation to that privacy, regardless of location. Any action taken to circumvent her means to privacy, i.e. cameras or removal of her clothing, should be considered a violation of her privacy.
In case anyone’s wondering, the sign is apparently from a drive-in movie theater in Korea. Seems to be a tasteless joke indicating a co-ed private bathroom. Not surprising considering what stereotypically happens at drive-in movie theaters.
That strikes me as some sort of harassment.
how disgusting that this is a question! what absurd applications of law. “haven’t caught up with technology”? In article, that quote was a feeble attempt to do what? mumble apology for the court? what stupid intellectuals we have. What cold people we have become —who care so little about women….BOTH women and men.
Its a double-standard. I think that if that’s “legal” then her pulling out a gun and shooting him in the fucking head because of his actions ought to also be, “legal.”
Its called consequence.
No harm, no foul.
Definitely yes. Unless she was wearing a miniskirt, then she can’t actually expect a terribly large amount of privacy.
Yes! What a stupid question. And what a stupid jury! Sure, she was in public, but it doesn’t mean that people can take pictures of her privates! That’s like a cop saying that because he can use anything that’s in plain view as evidence in court, he could give her a cavity search, because she’s in plain view and she’s wearing a skirt, not pants. That’s dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Sure, when you’re in public you don’t have certain rights to privacy, but you obviously have personal rights. That’s sexual harrassment! Does that mean you can be sexual harrassed whenever you’re in public, because you shouldn’t expect to have personal rights?
VIOLATION!
@TheVajana - i understand what your saying… but this girl was only 16! he was 34! that’s a.) completely discustinf.. and b.) say it was a short skirt… i know a lot of girls that went into short phases in high school.. your young you want to rebel.. some peoples parents don’t have the sece to give at leat SOME disapline to their 16 yr old childen… it’s just, at 16 i’d think.. your old enough to make your own decisions but not necessarily the right ones… i don’t care what kind of girl she is… if she’s 16.. he’s the adult.. and he should be heald accountable for his actions..
LOCK THAT PEDOPHILE BASTARD UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!!!! …then retrieve it after an amount of time that is legally necessary as punishment.
uh, yeah! Duh!
Uh… YES. Isn’t that what we call “personal space”? We expect people to respect our privacy and stay outside of our personal space… thus, yes, it violates her reasonable expectation of privacy.
yes.
that’s lewd of him…
ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME????
@QuietDiscerning - i’m rather impressed with your rare ability to spell “pedophile” correctly. i agree with you, also.
Are you fucking kidding me? This goes to show how our system has gone to hell. How sick.
YES
@Corwin256 - i thought so, cases does NOT help the justice system at all! its like theres no common sense of decency just cuz it was written down. ugh
how utterly degrading is that?! just because she’s in a public place gives others the right to put her on display like that?
*cases like these
Um. Yes?
Its not illegal? Hot damn! Now I can go up to the judges wife and take a picture under her skirt. I sure he wouldn’t like that, but hey, I can seeing as he was a fucking asshole who decides that people have no privacy in specific areas. IF I ever meet the man, I’m cussing him out, unless THATS illegal now.
of course. at target? that`s creepy
I think so. If she’s wearing clothes in public, she can reasonably expect the areas she chooses to cover with those clothes to remain private for as long as she chooses to keep said clothes on. Putting a camera up a girl’s skirt is invasive.
Of course, yes. But isn’t it sick for both the man who took that pic and the decision & comment of the court?!
Ew.
mmm.. if the skirt was short enough, wasn’t she asking for it?
Definitely!
um, yes.
yes i do
and clearly everyone else does too
maybe if we show this to that tard of a judge he will realize how stupid that ruling was
Yes, of course it violates privacy. It’s disrespectful and rude.
yah accha hai.
Of course it does.