Feeds

Alleged Peeping Tom claims First Amendment right to upskirt

Legal history in the making in Boston courtroom

The essential guide to IT transformation

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is mulling just whether an alleged upskirter's right to snap women's nether regions is defended by the US constitution, and indeed whether women who unwittingly expose themselves in public have any right to privacy.

Michael Robertson, 31, was cuffed back in 2010 for allegedly attempting to upskirt female passengers on Boston’s Green Line subway with his mobile phone. He's charged with "two counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person", the Eagle Tribune reports.

The accused wasn't in court on Monday as his attorney, Michelle Menken, claimed to seven justices that "the laws regarding taking unwanted pictures of women are outdated and actually protected under the First Amendment".

Specifically, Menken insisted that existing "Peeping Tom" laws "protect women and men from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms [sic] who are nude or partially nude". Since "the women in the photographs cannot be considered partially nude because their underwear covered everything and no private parts could be seen in the pictures taken".

“They have to be in an exposed state to violate the current law and these women were not," Menken noted.

She added: "If a clothed person reveals a body part whether it was intentional or unintentional, he or she can not expect privacy."

Attorney Cailin Campbell, for the state, disagreed, countering: "There is an understandable expectation that one can have on not being photographed like that in that kind of setting."

Campbell then told the justices that since the matter was of "upskirt photos of women, they can be considered partially nude even if they were fully clothed".

This prompted Justice Ralph Gants to observe: "So by that standard, everyone in this courtroom could be considered partially nude."

Evidently, the case hangs on the definition of "partially nude", and the court has previously sought clarification.

The justices must, however, also consider whether Robertson is someone who "wilfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity", as the law states.

“The use of a cellphone in public is not secret surveillance,” Menken declared.

Furthermore, there's the matter of the accused's constitutional rights. Menken argued that not only was her client not guilty under current law, but that that were he convicted, his First Amendment rights might be violated.

She said: "For example, say a woman is breast feeding in public and someone who is morally opposed to this or even a journalist takes a picture. The woman may be covered but for some reason the picture shows a little bit of her breast. Now, that person who took the photo can be charged with the same thing."

Justice Gants asked state attorney Campbell: "What if a photographer is doing a project of people on the subway or out in public and he wants to get candids. Can he now not do that?"

Campbell replied: "Just because somebody wants to take a picture, doesn’t mean they should." ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
And now a message from our sponsors: 'STFU or else'
Ex US cybersecurity czar guilty in child sex abuse website case
Health and Human Services IT security chief headed online to share vile images
Don't even THINK about copyright violation, says Indian state
Pre-emptive arrest for pirates in Karnataka
The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal
And our man Corfield is pretty bloody cross about it
Felony charges? Harsh! Alleged Anon hackers plead guilty to misdemeanours
US judge questions harsh sentence sought by prosecutors
Oz biz regulator discovers shared servers in EPIC FACEPALM
'Not aware' that one IP can hold more than one Website
Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
Judge Koh refuses Samsung ban for the third time
Pedals and wheel in that Google robo-car or it's off the road – Cali DMV
And insists on $5 million insurance per motor against accidents
prev story

Whitepapers

Top 10 endpoint backup mistakes
Avoid the ten endpoint backup mistakes to ensure that your critical corporate data is protected and end user productivity is improved.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Backing up distributed data
Eliminating the redundant use of bandwidth and storage capacity and application consolidation in the modern data center.
The essential guide to IT transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIOs automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.