Discussion: Judge Rules Man Who Took Photos Up Woman's Skirt Didn't Violate Privacy

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #228657

2

This judge should be removed from the bench immediately.

1 Like
3

“A Washington, D.C., judge ruled on Thursday that a man who took pictures up women’s skirts at the Lincoln Memorial did not violate her privacy”

Since “women” is plural, “her” cannot refer to “women”. Since “man” is masculine, “her” cannot refer to “man”. Since “Lincoln Memorial” is inanimate, “her” cannot refer to “Lincoln Memorial”. That just leaves “judge”, and the judge in this case is female. Therefore, this article claims that in taking upskirt pictures of women at the Lincoln Memorial, Christopher Cleveland did not violate the privacy of Judge Juliet McKenna.

Get a copyeditor, TPM.

12 Likes
4

A woman has a right to walk anywhere anytime and expect that her privates will not be taken a picture of. So, the rights of this man to take pictures of women’s private parts over rules a women’s privacy to her private parts. Something is definitely wrong with this judge and anyone who thinks the way this judge does. She should be thrown off the bench.

4 Likes
5

You sound like you’d make a great conservative with that blanket condemnation.

3 Likes
6

Shorter Judge: Get a burqua.

6 Likes
7

i just wish there was some way that these sobs had to experience the impact of their decisions.

8

“‘The images captured were not ‘incidental glimpses’ and in fact were images that were exposed to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever, to view,’ she wrote.”

I’m confused. Is the judge claiming that the women filing the complaint were flashing the crowd at the Lincoln Memorial, because if not I’m having trouble picturing how the defendant could have taken up skirt pictures that weren’t of “incidental glimpses” nor “requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever [on his part], to view.”

6 Likes
9

Gutsy call.

2 Likes
10

Is she not wearing underwear?

1 Like
11

Well, the judge’s name is Juliet McKenna, so I guess she has. Unless she’s addicted to pantsuits.

12

So, do you think that every judge who rules in ways you disagree with should be removed? No wonder it’s hard to find good judges.

3 Likes
13

Not at all—but taking photos up women’s skirts is invasive, crude, and should not be tolerated.

3 Likes
14

Yes. It is the invasive part that makes this unacceptable. Sneaking a camera under a skirt is clearly invading a space considered private.

4 Likes
15

One can only draw the conclusion that the judge in question wishes that someone would take pictures of HER HooHaw. Po, lonely old thang. Dust it off once in a while whydontcha! Get out from underneath those black robes. Get on up to the Lincoln memorial in a miniskirt and let the world answer the question: does the carpet match the drapes?

16

“The images captured were not ‘incidental glimpses’ and in fact were images that were exposed to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever, to view,” she wrote.

Ohhh…so the woman in question was climbing the stairs upside-down using her arms. Got it Judge!

1 Like
17

"In September, a Texas court overturned part of a law that banned taking upskirt photos “with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the defendant.”

In other words, TX decided to institutionalize the idea that women who dress a certain way are “asking for it.”

“In March, after a Massachusetts court ruled that that it was legal for someone to take upskirt photos on public transportation, the state legislature passed a ban on upskirt photos.”

Not quite. The SJC ruled that the particular criminal statute the guy was being prosecuted under did not criminalize that behavior. Sure, there’s a little bit of a semantic game gong on for me to say that, but I think the distinction between “this particular statute doesn’t criminalize this behavior” and “this behavior is legal” (implying there may be no way to make it illegal). While I think there probably wasn’t another statute that would’ve given them the opportunity to prosecute either, “legal” also often implies to lay-folks that he couldn’t be sued in tort as well. I just hate uncareful generalizations of rulings as a matter of principle.

1 Like
18

I think I would need to know more facts than are provided in the report before deciding to be outraged. If the Judge was right and, ."

“The images captured were not ‘incidental glimpses’ and in fact were images that were exposed to the public without requiring any extraordinary lengths whatsoever, to view,” she wrote, then the ruling is probably correct.

2 Likes
19

Or: All women should wear slacks.

20

Thank you, I’m glad I wasn’t the only one scratching my head at what seemed to be self-contradictory statements by the judge.