PetaPixel

Massachusetts Legislature Passes ‘Upskirt’ Ban in Response to Court Ruling

skirt1

Well that was fast. Only a day after news broke of the controversial Massachusetts ruling that ‘upskirt’ photographs were in fact legal according to the states Peeping Tom laws, the state’s legislature has responded by passing a ban.

The move comes as no surprise. After the ruling came down, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley called for the legislature to act, and the legislature has responded with all haste to update what was clearly an outdated set of laws.

The ban, which Gov. Deval Patrick has already publicly stated he will sign, will make photographing or shooting video under a person’s clothes a misdemeanor.

“I am proud of the Senate for taking action today to restore a women’s (sic) right to privacy,” said Senate President Therese Murray in a statement. “We are sending a message that to take a photo or video of a woman under her clothing is morally reprehensible and, in Massachusetts, we will put you in jail for doing it.”

(via CNN)


Image credits: Polka-Dot Skirt by Bramblewood Fashion


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • Martin Nilsson

    Just a quick question – will this also cover the airport scanners? If they act too quickly they might end up shooting themselves in the foot.

  • Alan Klughammer

    I hope so…

  • http://blog.joshsouzaphotos.com joshsouzaphotos

    Would be nice, I really don’t wanna fly because of the violations they put on us to do so.

    Will street photographers in MA now be quick targets for police, with false accusations put on them? That is what I wonder.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want women or children having photos of their genital areas taken in public secretly. I’m just wonder how loose the law has been made.

  • Genkakuzai

    Excellent picture to use. Because that is obviously the skirt a perv taking upskirts would be looking for!

  • Ken Jones

    Well, while it needs doing, let’s see how bad they screw it up.

    Will you get in trouble if you are out photographing a city landscape and a “lady” is sitting immodestly, will you be charged? What about a situation like the famous Marilyn Monroe subway shot? Can a guy get in trouble if he takes a shot of his girlfriend flashing him?

    Kneejerk legislation typically gets it wrong. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

  • wgone

    Here are some other issues. Does this cover both men and women? Supposed i wanted to crash a big live event then, all i had to do was raise my skirt (or drop my pants) and they would have to stop filming at say a major sporting event? What about consensual upskirt photography – such a thing does exist, would that now be illegal. What about accidental upskirt, the wind etc? This article needs to post the act. Not so fast petapixel, just because the Mass legislature responded quick and hastily, you didn’t have to.

  • http://www.markhoustonphotography.com/ mthouston

    Good…I can wear my Kilt in Massachusetts without fear.

  • Ronald

    Looks like a 10 cent designer photo

  • OtterMatt

    The FAA would be exempted because A) airports are a federal jurisdiction zone, not a state one, and B) the images in question are never stored, so it’s not quite the same issue.

  • OtterMatt

    These “issues” are borderline idiotic. Why would someone voluntarily giving up their right to privacy somehow get anyone else in trouble? Yeah, you should probably sit properly in a park, but someone standing naked in their own house doesn’t have a right to sue someone for seeing them if they’re standing right in the damn window with a floodlight on themselves.

    And what the hell does PetaPixel have to watch out for? They’re just reporting the news, not making a moral case. Moron.

  • Stephen

    Without delving into jurisdictional issues or the legal validity of whether you can draw a line between momentary versus indefinite data storage: this law wouldn’t apply to body scanners because it criminalizes secret, non-consensual photography. When you step into those scanners, you do it knowingly.

  • Martin Nilsson

    The text in the article said “will make photographing or shooting video under a person’s clothes a misdemeanor”. Nothing about it being approved of or not. I would of course assume the actual law is more clear, but you never know.

    We had a pass in Sweden, that with good intentions, prohibits the taking of photos in secrete in areas where you would expect privacy. That law has been much discussed based on the vague grounds it stands. And in the case of this law, it covers TAKING a picture. So no film or memory card in the camera, the act is still illegal.

  • Stephen

    The law is titled an Act relative to unlawful sexual surveillance, and its bill number is H3934. You can find the text online and read it for yourself. I linked to it yesterday, but that comment got stuck in moderation and has not appeared.

  • Chris Hirst

    At least Paris Hilton can feel safe when she leaves her underwear at home during her Massachusetts visits……Oh no! No point in visiting then.

  • Martin Nilsson

    I read it through, thanks for the tip. See that they emphasize on “in secrete” which should cover most bases.