Upskirt photos are legal in Massachusetts.

Yeah, I don’t know how to begin this one. First upskirt photos are a thing. These are photos taken without a person’s knowledge or consent up their skirts/dresses by a pervert…yeah, I’m comfortable with that statement. States have been considering bans and laws restricting these photos because invasion of privacy, unwilling participants in pornography, minors, etc. However, Massachusetts has decided that closed readings of the law doesn’t not prohibit such photos.

ThinkProgress had a piece by Aviva Shen on the ruling. Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly take photos up women’s skirts. Michael Robertson was charged after his arrest by Boston transit police for taking photos and videos up the skirts of several women on the subway, but the court dismissed all charges. Because institutional misogyny.

Of course, the judge is sympathetic to anyone who would find themselves the victims of upskirt photos because they should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but current state law doesn’t address that. The “Peeping Tom” laws in Massachusetts only protects women (stated in the Shen post, but I would hope it protects all people) from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Upskirt photos are usually taken when the individual is fully clothed so no law broken.

The court wrote this statement: “A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no mention what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing.” What I love about this, and by that I mean hate, it the policing of women’s clothing because if you don’t want an upskirt photo taken, better wear pants. It also reinforces rape culture because the expectation is all men are and will take these sorts of photos.

Robertson’s lawyers argued that the photos are a matter of free speech because obviously. Upskirt photos keep finding their way into the news partially due to the spread of camera phones and THE INTERNET. However, the law hasn’t been as adaptive. Most voyeurism laws give people a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” but that is hard to prove when in a public space. Additionally, Massachusetts isn’t alone in the acquittal; perpetrators in Oklahoma, Indiana, and Washington have been cleared of charges. Of course, in response to one case where a man took an upskirt photo of a 10-year-pld girl, Indiana has passed a ban on upskirt photos back in 2011.

See I’m not sure why this is all that different from revenge porn. The same principles apply: photos taken and/or shared without the consent of the subject. This is a modern form of assault. The motive is sexual exploitation of an individual who can’t or didn’t consent. This might be a little extreme for some people, but clearly this is where technology is taking us. 

***UPDATE: Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill prohibiting upskirt photos in Massachusetts. 

Massachusetts Sue Federal Government

The state of Massachusetts is suing the United States government claiming the Feds are discriminating against the married gay couples of Mass. This is kind of awesome! Yeah, Mass!

Massachusetts claims the Defense of Marriage Act violates the rights of the gay married couples in Massachusetts. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Several other lawsuits have been brought against the U.S. government on this subject, but this is the first time a state has. The positive of this case is the obvious; that the Supreme Court could find in favor of Mass, and that the Defences of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The negative is that the Supreme Court could find in favor of the Feds or that this is a state issue. This isn't a state issue because the issue isn't marriage, which is, but civil liberties and rights.