Feeds

Alleged Peeping Tom claims First Amendment right to upskirt

Legal history in the making in Boston courtroom

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

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his attorney, Michelle Menken, claimed to seven justices that "the laws regarding taking unwanted pictures of women are outdated and actually protected under the First Amendment".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." ®

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

More from The Register

next story
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
Lords take revenge on REVENGE PORN publishers
Jilted Johns and Jennies with busy fingers face two years inside
Yes, yes, Steve Jobs. Look what I'VE done for you lately – Tim Cook
New iPhone biz baron points to Apple's (his) greatest successes
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
Facebook pays INFINITELY MORE UK corp tax than in 2012
Thanks for the £3k, Zuck. Doh! you're IN CREDIT. Guess not
Edward who? GCHQ boss dodges Snowden topic during last speech
UK spies would rather 'walk' than do 'mass surveillance'
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.