Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An argument about location is not an argument about clothing conveying an expectation of privacy.
I know. That's why the court ruled the way it did. THIS law, for its purposes, defines privacy based on location, not on clothing coverage. The court rejected your argument that the law's language (language that confines privacy to location) somehow also includes an expectation of privacy being provided by wearing clothing. Nothing in the language of the law supports that argument, so they Court was required to reject it.
Quote:
The argument about clothing has to do with the purpose of clothing in public. If laws are passed regarding the wearing of clothing, and that is what indecent exposure laws deal with, then it's a two-way street from a logic point of view. If the state presumes that clothing is intended to cover private parts, then it is reasonable for a citizen to presume that clothing is worn to cover private parts, and that presumption entails an expectation of privacy conveyed by the wearing of clothing. For another individual to violate that expectation, and for the Commonwealth not to have raised this point in its arguments, and then for the Court to not have considered this point, is a problem.
You seem to be confusing Constitutional law (and to an extent common law) with criminal law (which is statutory). There is a Constitutional right to privacy. Constitutional rights are rights than cannot be invaded by governments. It would be the role of a Court to determine if the right to privacy extends to privacy provided by wearing clothing in the context of a Government law invading that privacy. That's all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with criminal law and individuals getting up in your privacy.
When looking at the criminality of conduct, courts can only consider the specific law under which the person is being prosecuted. In this case, to be convicted, the law requires the victim be "in such place [as to] have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed." This is an element of the crime that has to be proved for conviction. In analyzing if it's been proved, the Court can ONLY look to the language of the law itself. The Court can't look to Roe v. Wade to determine what privacy means FOR THIS CRIMINAL LAW. The Court can't apply what it thinks the best definition of privacy is. The count can't ponder about what "the state presumes" privacy means in a general context. The Court can ONLY look to the language of this criminal statute to determine what privacy means for THIS crime.
Quote:
I think that what this guy did is illegal under current law..
How can you possibly read the law and determine that under its particular language what this guy did satisfies all 5 elements? The law defines privacy in terms of "place." As much as you, and me, and the Court seemingly doesn't like that limitation on privacy, that's what the law's particular language limits it to. The Court has no power to extend that. It is solely the legislature's responsibility to define criminal conduct.
Not only does his conduct not meet the privacy requirement, the law specifically requires the photos to be of either genitals, the buttocks, the exposed pubic area, or breasts with nipples showing. Even if you were right and the privacy requirement were more expansive so that his conduct satisfied it, he would be not guilty because his conduct fails to meet this required nudity element.
Quote:
While I understand the Court's desire to have the legislature address this issue explicitly under the law, I think that the current laws could have been applied so that this man's actions would have been criminal anyway.
Again, not criminal laws. Common law and Constitutional law leave lots of wiggle room for courts to interpret. Statutory criminal laws have to be read specifically and particularly, giving credence to the language as written.
I know. That's why the court ruled the way it did. THIS law, for its purposes, defines privacy based on location, not on clothing coverage. The court rejected your argument that the law's language (language that confines privacy to location) somehow also includes an expectation of privacy being provided by wearing clothing. Nothing in the language of the law supports that argument, so they Court was required to reject it.
You seem to be confusing Constitutional law (and to an extent common law) with criminal law (which is statutory). There is a Constitutional right to privacy. Constitutional rights are rights than cannot be invaded by governments. It would be the role of a Court to determine if the right to privacy extends to privacy provided by wearing clothing in the context of a Government law invading that privacy. That's all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with criminal law and individuals getting up in your privacy.
When looking at the criminality of conduct, courts can only consider the specific law under which the person is being prosecuted. In this case, to be convicted, the law requires the victim be "in such place [as to] have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed." This is an element of the crime that has to be proved for conviction. In analyzing if it's been proved, the Court can ONLY look to the language of the law itself. The Court can't look to Roe v. Wade to determine what privacy means FOR THIS CRIMINAL LAW. The Court can't apply what it thinks the best definition of privacy is. The count can't ponder about what "the state presumes" privacy means in a general context. The Court can ONLY look to the language of this criminal statute to determine what privacy means for THIS crime.
How can you possibly read the law and determine that under its particular language what this guy did satisfies all 5 elements? The law defines privacy in terms of "place." As much as you, and me, and the Court seemingly doesn't like that limitation on privacy, that's what the law's particular language limits it to. The Court has no power to extend that. It is solely the legislature's responsibility to define criminal conduct.
Not only does his conduct not meet the privacy requirement, the law specifically requires the photos to be of either genitals, the buttocks, the exposed pubic area, or breasts with nipples showing. Even if you were right and the privacy requirement were more expansive so that his conduct satisfied it, he would be not guilty because his conduct fails to meet this required nudity element.
Again, not criminal laws. Common law and Constitutional law leave lots of wiggle room for courts to interpret. Statutory criminal laws have to be read specifically and particularly, giving credence to the language as written.
I'm not confusing anything.
I'm logically stating that the Court's focus on "to be in such a place as to have a reasonable expectation of privacy" is incorrect. Since in this case WHEREVER a woman is, she has a reasonable expectation to not have someone secretly place a camera under her skirt and take pictures. WHEREVER she is. Be it on public transportation, or in a tanning salon. WHEREVER she is, her expectation of privacy is implicit in that she was wearing clothing to cover parts of her body, and it is a reasonable expectation on her part that the clothing provides her with a cloak of privacy, no matter where she is. The court's job is to look at the language of the law, but nothing in the language of the law states that when a woman is in public, that it's unreasonable of her to expect men not to examine her underneath her clothing. And it is the court's job to determine the meaning of "reasonable". And that's where I think they erred.
Because these rulings ignore a basic premise. That the wearing of clothing in and of itself, conveys an expectation of privacy. The more concealing the clothing, the greater the expectation of privacy. A woman's suit is not revealing in any way. Just because the bottom is open, does not mean that a woman should expect her privacy to be violated. And that's the illogic embraced by this court's decision, and by the Massachusett's court's decision. The decisions actually suggest that women have a lower expectation of privacy because the clothing that our culture and society expects women to wear is open on the bottom. It's illogical.
And I don't necessarily blame the courts, but the attorneys involved, who have failed to make the argument that the wearing of clothing expresses an expectation of privacy. Courts will entertain the arguments presented them by the attorneys. Given the posts I'm reading on this forum, I think men have a very different perspective regarding women's privacy than women do. Voyeurism is a violation.
Not all men. I am a man and I agree with you.
Wearing clothes in and of itself should be all the expectation of privacy one should need to not be violated.
If you are wearing a skirt, "it" is not "out in public". "It" is concealed by clothing, and someone SECRETLY photographing "it" is violating another person's privacy.
I expect judges to use common sense but i guess that's asking to much from liberal judges!
I think that the idea that someone can do this is terrible but courts should rule on the law, not common sense because many times common sense is anything but.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
somebody will get a shot
