A Massachusetts man arrested for taking “upskirt” cellphone photos of women on subways has argued in court that it’s perfectly legal and Constitutionally protected.
Our inherent right, given to us by divine grace, to secretly harvest pixelated onanism material on public transportation. When you hear someone from the Fertile Crescent ranting about the "Great Satan" this is the kind of thing they're thinking of.
Michael Robertson, 31, was arrested in 2010 after trying to take photos up women’s dresses on the Boston subway.
I see he's also getting that speedy trial the Constitution promises. Now that this has somehow become a First Amendment issue we can expect it to drag on for many more years. Maybe just pay the $50 fine and don't do it again? Nah, let's turn my moral leprosy into the trial of the century.
Robertson’s defense attorney, a woman, argued before the state Supreme Court on Monday that her client’s actions are protected under the First Amendment.
Speech, religion, press, assembly...I'm missing the part that covers unauthorized bikini area photography, but it's probably in the fine print somewhere.
Also, they're now apparently giving law degrees away in "magic claw" machines.
Friedman, a Hofstra Law School professor, argued Robertson is not protected under law according to the Fourth Amendment.
Thank you law school professor for pointing out something that's obvious to anyone but an idiot.
“Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your underwear or in the thighs of your body when you cover it with a skirt? And the answer is you do,” Friedman said.
It's a tough task, balancing the rights of subway scumbags against the right to thigh privacy.
Now protected by the Bill of Rights!
Some women in New York were appalled by the case. “A lot of perverts out there,” one woman told Gainer. “Horrible! I can’t believe that’s the case here,” another woman added.
I was too embarrassed and/or lazy to actually interview anyone, so here's some made-up quotes that express what a likely hypothetical reaction to this would be from an ordinary person.
“It’s very frustrating,” another woman told Gainer. “The more time that goes by, the more rights that they have, the more loopholes that they can find and it’s just less and less safe.”
It's a mathematical equation: Time multiplied by the speed of light equals more rights, loopholes and less safety. Yes, we have discovered rights/loophole equivalence. This theory of freedom and weaseling relativity also accounts for the steady entropy state of our safety.
Clearly the answer is less freedom.
“I’ve heard stories of people looking up skirts and such, so I definitely keep my legs together and try to cover up,” another woman said.
"After I got done getting off to those hot, hot stories I changed my public behavior."
The Massachusetts Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office has argued that people have a right to privacy beneath their own clothes and you don’t waive that right just by getting on the subway.
Unless you're at an airport, of course.
Here's a link to the original story. Don't visit this site under any circumstances, it's laden with every type of commercialized b.s. you could imagine. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/07/mass-man-defends-snapping-upskirt-photos-as-constitutionally-protected/
The war on women by liberals continues, don't think for one second that the defendant or his female lawyer are conservatives. Nice job libtards.
One peak up a libtards skirt and you're probably bound to see a gerbal attempting to escape their arse.
What about these celeb women with nip slips, showing their coochies, rears hanging out
Hey, it's just a photon-scattering event. Nobody owns photons.
Oh... our comments should relate to the story? Since when?