Upskirt Pics??

[caesar273]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

I'm all for freedom of speech and the bill of rights, but if you telling me that my daughter or wife can't wear a skirt in public without expecting someone to look up it is insane. All due respect but that is the most insane comment I have ever heard. I understand that women who wear skirts that barely cover their ass cheeks are asking to get stared at, but that is not to stay that a girl coming home from Catholic school in her uniform deserves to have some perv trying to get a peek at her panties. I dont know the specifics of the case, but to say that women cant wear dresses is like saying that the victim of a drunk driver injuring them should have expected it since they were driving on the road at 2am when people drink.

I'm sorry, I am as much a perv as the next guy but I think this is way off base. I believe people should be held accountable for their own actions but not every girl wearing a dress should have to wear shorts to keep perverts from looking at their panties. There has to be a line somewhere.

[Choppie]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

So basically you're saying hold everyone accountable for their actions, EXCEPT people who wish to wear exposing clothing.

The drunk driving analogy is inaccurate as well. One must be licensed to drive, correct? Part of the licensing process is understanding the laws, as drinking and driving is illegal and can HARM people, doing so breaches said licensing agreement, hence the suspensions and such.

Are you then saying that we should begin licensing people to wear shirts? (granted this could be a GREAT thing considering some of the people who choose to wear skirts, lol)

As for the reference to a minor, which was not what the case was about, that is a different cat to skin...so to speak. That my friend falls into pedophilia and other laws that protect minors from exploitation. I'm a guy, and I HAVE worn skirts (high school prank, drunken festivities) and I understood that by doing so I was going to have people looking and such. Grown women have the ability to choose their own clothing, and if they choose a shirt they can take steps to ensure that pervs do not look up them, i.e. cross their legs, wear leggings, or even shorts underneath.

The people that complain loudest about this shit are the ones that are least responsible for their own actions. "Sure, lets strip down on a public beach and run around" only to get mad when people snap pictures.

Simply stated they want to do whatever they want (which I am a fan of) and do not want to have to deal with any consequences. Now if one were to go out of their way to look up a shirt, that IS ASSAULT, not a simple upskirt. Big difference is in the intent. Like the afore mentions paparazzi slimeball actions.

By your logic I should be able to dress like a clown and sue people for looking, laughing and taking pictures.

You said people should be accountable for their actions, how is punishing other for your attire decisions accountability.

[Shasturbator]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

if that line happens to be a tampon string hanging from between her legs...probably not gonna get as many looks

[Choppie]

Also I feel I must point out, I am not attacking anyone personally. Merely debating both sides of a story. As no one else played the devil's advocate thus far I felt compelled to.

You guys are expressing valid points, that even I as a father of two little girls find myself hard pressed to argue. The simple fact remains that I believe responsibility to the responsible.

[Choppie]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

OK, most of you guys are expressing valid points. Shasturbator is just making me throw up in my mouth a little

[caesar273]

I understand what you are saying completely, and I guess at this point we need to decide where the line is. How short does a skirt have to be before they are "Asking for it"? To me a girl wearing a skirt that barely covers her ass is at some point has to expect that guys are gonna look. I am a firm believer of If you are gonna show it I am gonna look. However a professional woman who is wearing a business skirt that drops just above the knee shouldn't have to assume that because they are wearing a skirt any guy has the right to look up her skirt. I understand I used a bad example with the school girl because of the minor issues. However in a similar instance the person standing in line at a department store with a knee length or longer skirt should be protected by the law from someone trying to sneak a peek at her unmentionables.

To me your original comment suggests that any women wearing any type of dress should just expect any man to look up her skirt with no legal recourse. Does that mean that any man can walk up to any woman wearing a skirt and lift it up to see whats underneath?

As for my drunk driving example, the view was from the victims point. So if I wear driving home from work late at night, I am an IT guy so it happens a lot, and a drunk driver hits me I should have expected it because it was late at night when drunk drivers are typically on the road?

Just because you can see up a girls skirt gives you the right to?

Oh and i am not taking it personal either, I just love a good debate.

[MillyMc]

Everybody is responsible for their own actions, but they also have the right not to have their rights impinged upon by the inappropriate actions of others. The case isnt about a woman's responsibility to dress appropriately, but a woman's right to personal privacy.

I believe from the story that this wasnt some girl with a short skirt, but a creep that had set up a camera in a bag or something to sneak it under women's skirts to snap a shot. There is a reasonable expectation that because their lady parts are covered, she wants them to be covered.

Its also a slippery slope. Can a guy drop down to the floor to look up a skirt? Can he lift a skirt as long as he doesnt touch the girl? At what point does a man cross a personal line? With a woman? With a guy?

Its a creep thing to do and the government shouldnt be allowing it to happen. I think Sexylion hit the nail on its head talking about how the court is thinking big picture on this. These cases are never really about the actually crime, but about the law; in this case how little actual personal privacy that we have. You appear to have a Liberatarian slant, and if I were you, I would be more concerned about those loss of liberties then about ensuring that a person realizes that they are responsible for the reaction to their attire.

[towdog]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

better than fucking WisCuntson.


Now then....if I remember the court decision when this was reported a while back, (since this is old news here in the backwards state) the court said that there was no current statute that prevented these pictures from being taken and therefore he couldn't be charged. The ruling also encouraged the state legislature and local city governments to enact laws to in the future protect short skirt wearing sluts and make it illegal to snap shots of their slots.

The guy was charged under the peeping tom law. But the law only protects you in your home, a locker room, dressing room, restroom, etc. Not outside in the public. If he had snapped the picture while she was trying on dresses in Sears this never would have made the news. But think about it. If he had been charged and convicted for snapping a picture, up a skirt, in public, then the same thing would have to be done to any person seen at a sporting event taking pictures of cheerleaders when they kick or jump. That would include their family members. A skirt is a skirt, public is public, and right is wrong.

[towdog]

Tulsan tries to revise 'peep' law

by: MICK HINTON World Capitol Bureau
3/13/2008 12:00 AM

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The state House on Thursday will consider a Tulsa legislator's bill that could help rectify a problem with the law that came to light recently when a suspected "Peeping Tom" in a Target store was freed by a court.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a charge against a man accused of "situating a camera underneath the skirt of an unsuspecting customer" must be dismissed because it had occurred in a public place.

The appeals court said it was restricted by current Oklahoma law that prohibits such an action only if it occurs "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy," such as a locker room, dressing room, restroom or a place of residence.

Rep. Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, said she has been working on a bill since last summer to address this very problem. Her measure, House Bill 2606, would make such an offense a crime, wherever the offense occurred. Peterson said it is a case of catching up the law with current technology, such as the advent of cell phones that take pictures.

Peterson's bill calls for prosecuting the offender for a misdemeanor, with punishment of up to a year in prison and/or a $5,000 fine.

The current "Peeping Tom" statute calls for a felony count with punishment up to five years in prison.

Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris said Wednesday the more specific offense should remain a felony.

"People have the expectation of privacy over their bodies," he said. "If the woman was naked, that is one thing, but it is another thing if a cell phone is taking a picture of her crotch."

He said the court's decision is a "confusing analysis."

"How do I go back to this victim and tell her she has no expectation of privacy to her private parts in a public place?" he asked.

Peterson said her misdemeanor proposal "is a place to start."

Harris said he agrees it is probably a stopgap measure that is a step forward.

The lawmaker said that due to overcrowding problems within the prison system, she is not sure another felony should be put on the books.

"We want to make sure that there is a law that makes this a crime," Peterson said.

In the 2006 case, Riccardo Gino Ferrante, now 34, was accused of shooting pictures from an angle underneath a woman's skirt, without her knowledge, in the open shopping area of a Target store.

The court's summary opinion affirmed by four of five judges said a district court had ruled correctly in dismissing the charge, based on current law, "although the court in interpreting and applying particular statutes may think the Legislature should have made them more comprehensive."

This is precisely what Peterson says her bill will do.

Tulsa community groups that work with women and girls were concerned about the implication of Tuesday's decision.

"We can't believe that measuring decent behavior has become whether it falls within a loophole or technicality of the law," said Barbara Findeiss, executive director of the Child Abuse Network.

Offenders often find dangerous loopholes that stand in the way of common sense, she said.

"The obvious is not so obvious anymore," she said.

Felicia Correia, chief executive officer of the Tulsa YWCA, said the law needs to be changed.

"You would think that in a store, under your skirt, you could expect privacy," Correia said.

The law needs to protect women against the ways technology can be used to hurt them. Not doing so would send a damaging message to the community, she said.

"It will be more and more difficult as technology advances," Correia said.

The associate director of Domestic Violence Intervention Services/Call Rape, said she is confident the law will change and she understood the judges' task when looking at the case.

"They have to look at a lot of distinctions," said Donna Mathews, who is also an attorney.

Legislators have worked quickly in the past on issues involving women and privacy, Mathews said. "I think they will in this case, too," she said.

-----------------------------

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

Added: Apr 18, 2008

From: okiecampaigns

Duration: 3:40

Governor Brad Henry has signed into a law HB 2606 that closes a loophole in the state's Peeping Tom law.The legislature passed the bill to outlaw the taking of photographs of a person's private areas while in a public place and the governor signed it Friday.The bill was drafted after charges were dismissed against a man who had taken photos under the skirt of a 16-year-old girl inside a store in Tulsa.A state appeals court ruled that the girl was not in a place where she could have "a reasonable expectation of privacy."Sen. Brogdon said, "Unfortunately, we learned this past year that our law on Peeping Toms has not kept up with technology, which has made it easier and easier to photograph people without their knowledge. In 2006, an Oklahoma man was accused of using his cell phone to take pictures underneath a teenager's skirt while she was shopping. The man was charged under the current law, but the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said it did not apply in his case, because the girl was in a public place.I'm sure the victim, her family, prosecutors and other citizens were outraged to learn that the man could not be convicted of violating her privacy by taking those pictures. So was I, and that is why I chose to be the Senate author of HB 2606. This legislation will prohibit the use of any photographic, electronic or video equipment to be used without the subject's knowledge to take indecent pictures. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor, and face up to a year in prison and a fine of $5,000.It was encouraging to see House Bill 2606 receive unanimous approval from our State Senate and I look forward to its signage into law. I do believe in less, not more, government. But new technology can result in new types of crimes, and when necessary, we must make sure our laws are keeping up with the times."

[mull072]

does this mean we can all look forward to more upskirt pics from Oklahoma?
i dont wanna debate the pros and cons of upskirt shots........suffice ta say underage way not cool!
but gotta say i farkin love that pic!
peace