Upskirt Photos Legal in Massachusetts As Long As Subject Isn't Partially Nude, Court Rules


Taking upskirt photos of women in public is not a crime in Massachusetts, according to the state's Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). In a ruling Wednesday, the SJC sided with defendant Michael Robertson, who was charged in 2010 for taking upskirt photos of two women on Boston's Green Line train.
But the Massachusetts law used to charge Robertson was inapplicable, the court said, because the women he photographed were fully clothed. As the law is written, it applies only to people in private or people who are fully or partially nude in public. From the court's decision:
"We conclude that (the law), as written … is concerned with proscribing Peeping Tom voyeurism of people who are completely or partially undressed and, in particular, such voyeurism enhanced by electronic devices. (The law) does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA."
Lawyers for Massachusetts had argued that women riding public transit have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not having a stranger secretly photograph up their skirts. "The proposition is eminently reasonable, but (the law) in its current form does not address it," the court concluded.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
HOW CAN I TELL IF THEY'RE FULLY CLOTHED UNTIL I LOOK AT THE PICTURE???
There's an app for that.
I think I cannot judge the sanity of the perpetrator until I know exactly where on the green line he was taking the pictures.
What if it was Park Street?
The court obviously wanted to provide some "safe harbor" peeps for Tom.
And this is the point that the politically correct outrage machine misses. Legislatures often write laws in stupid ways, but the remedy is not for a court to broaden the scope of the law to fit any person's opinion of what the law should have said.
What you're overlooking is the need to Do Something about the War on Womban in Massachusetts.
Writing laws that criminalize publicizing confidential matters would take entirely too long, whereas enthusiastic activist judges have never created any unintended legal consequences that I can think of.
You mean words have meanings, and laws are written in words, and thus mean specific things and don't mean other things?
That's so ... awkward!
I can't believe I'm typing this but - there oughta be a law!
Has anyone ever ridden the commuter trains in Chicago? With the partial upper deck? In the summertime? On a Friday evening?
Yes, but I keep my head down because I'm scared of what I'm likely to find rather than the rare beaver worth looking at
Oops, for some reason I thought you meant the L instead of Metra. Yes, beaver shooting is worthwhile on Metra because the obese rarely go upstairs on the trains.
Are they saying that if you're nude in public no one can take a picture of you?
That would seem to be the case, yes. Or even just pantsless.
Public nudity does not thereby confer a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Why? If you're doing something in public, or where other people might see it from wherever they have a right to be, and its not a bathroom or a fitting room or something like that?
Someone should have his sarcometer checked.
Bzzt.
There's no "expectation of privacy" in some blanket sense, in public.
Being in public does not allow for an expectation of privacy against being looked at or photographed in a normally expected way.
Someone else should have his sarcometer checked as well.
FTFA, it looks like it's another post-CRA64 misuse of the word public to apply to property that is in most cases private (the fictional "public accommodation"):
So it's NOT illegal to photograph streakers?
No, what they're saying is city surveillance has a monopoly on photographing the partially or fully nude in public.
Is this part of the War on Women (WoW) or have any Scottsmen been violated?
Scotsmen violate the photographer, not vicey versey.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown started 2 epic shit storms this morning. Just when I think she can't sink any lower, she goes and TOTALLY REDEEMS HERSELF!!!
Thank you.
TV show "What's my Line" from 1958.
Guest operates skirt blowing machine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7womDniwbNE
When the Mass. legislature rectifies this I hope they title it "Warty's Law".
Here's a really important ruling that came down today.
Somebody else posted it today but it's definitely worth repeating.
Someone should tell these people, stat!
Isn't everyone partially nude? Except possibly some muslim women?
Then X-ray spec cameras are legal in Massachusetts!
Lemme see if I got this: If you're nude in public, you expect your privacy to be protected, so it's illegal for someone to surreptitiously photograph you; but if you're not nude but you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy, so it's OK for people to contrive surreptitiously to photograph your crotch?
Yep! Seems legit, right?