# victory for peeping toms **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 25, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686 "2008-03-25T15:19:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/21 "2008-03-26T16:13:36Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] victory for peeping toms [/QUOTE] Yay! …I mean… how interesting, _do_ go on. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/22 "2008-03-26T16:16:59Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Yay! …I mean… how interesting, _do_ go on. [/QUOTE] A _ha!_ ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/23 "2008-03-26T17:06:33Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] Because it’s not something any decent man is familiar with. [/QUOTE] I don’t understand how this is relevant. We’re discussing politicians. 😉 Seriously, I think **smiling bandit** is right- no one’s claiming this is moral or that it should be legal, just that it isn’t illegal yet. If this case gets any publicity at all, I bet we’ll see a rush by the legislature to make it illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2008, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/24 "2008-03-26T17:26:07Z")
It reads as though this was a 16-year old girl who has no interest in strangers seeing her underthings. I suspect that the perp wasn’t so much a Peeping Tom as he was a _Conservationist_ – he was just trying to capture on film one of the last remaining specimins of this rare creature in its native habitat (the mall)! 'Cause last time I was at the mall, I could’ve told you what brand of thong (16 yo girls) or boxers (16 yo boys) everyone was wearing. Hrrumph. Also: please get off my lawn, thankyou. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/25 "2008-03-26T17:27:55Z")
**pravnik** , that’s cheating! you’re not allowed to use facts in an argument! ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2008, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/26 "2008-03-26T19:27:06Z")
[QUOTE=Garfield226] Pretty much seems to be the case. Better articles: [FoxNews](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337173,00.html) and [The Tulsa World](http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080313_1_A1_spanc04584). [/QUOTE] If there’s any doubt about whether the guy deserves to be prosecuted, I think this sentence from the first link clears it up: [QUOTE=FoxNews] Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt. [/QUOTE] That’s _waaaaay_ over the line. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/27 "2008-03-27T01:29:04Z")
What it clears up is that he can not be prosecuted under present law. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/28 "2008-03-27T03:12:04Z")
[QUOTE=Cisco] …But, apparently, he actually _stuck the camera up her skirt_ 😕 :eek: I cannot comprehend how this doesn’t violate any laws. [/QUOTE] This is probably not exactly correct. The story says “underneath”, which may well mean “from below”. I remember a similar story from years ago – the guy attached a camera to the top of his shoe facing upward. Then he would walk up to young women and use a remote to snap a pic. I can’t recall what happened to that guy. I think he was in Maryland. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/29 "2008-03-27T04:26:05Z")
One of the difficulties that legislators face is framing a law so that it attacks the real problem without causing collateral damage. My challenge: write a law that will make illegal the taking of upskirt pictures in public places, but doesn’t incidentally outlaw acceptable taking of photographs of people in public places. If someone takes a photograph showing a front view of a woman, that’s OK, right? What if she’s showing some cleavage? That’s OK, right? What if he takes the photo from above or the side and and gets slightly more chest in shot than a front on shot would? OK? But how far can he go? What if he takes the photo from an even higher angle (say from above while he’s standing and she’s sitting) and gets a real eyeful? Is that OK? What angle is OK? Is it OK if he can just see breast but not OK once he can see nipple? Should he be obliged to stop if he can see more than he assumes she intended to reveal? How the heck would that work in a prosecution. It’s not as easy as it seems. Once he’s actually committing assault (shoving something up someone’s skirt, say) it’s obvious, but already covered by existing laws. But if he stops short of that, how do you draw the line? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/30 "2008-03-27T18:42:44Z")
Apparently in Oklahoma it is not covered by existing law. That is the point. I think we can agree that there should be such laws. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/31 "2008-03-27T19:42:45Z")
Seems a judge with a brain could have decided that one is reasonably entitled to just a smidge of privacy in a store, where privacy is defined as “the right not to have a pervert photograph under my clothes”. This is the second “the law is an extreme ass” case I’ve run across this week. The other involves a decades-ago prosecution described in Jerry Giesler’s autobiography (he was a famous, if not notorious early-mid 20th century American defense attorney). He got a kidnaping charge against his client thrown out. Seems the guy accosted his ex-wife’s new boyfriend at gunpoint and forced him to drive the gunman to the wife’s home for a confrontation. Giesler suggested to the abductee that it really wasn’t a kidnaping at all: “Well, you were planning on going there anyway, weren’t you?” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/32 "2008-03-27T19:54:54Z")
[QUOTE=Jackmannii] Seems a judge with a brain could have decided that one is reasonably entitled to just a smidge of privacy in a store, where privacy is defined as “the right not to have a pervert photograph under my clothes”. [/quote] But a judge with a brain would realize that it wasn’t his job to create new laws, and that a fair reading of the text of the existing law simply didn’t cover a right of privacy in a store. He could well believe, as everyone here posting does, that such a law is a very good idea… but that it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/33 "2008-03-27T20:05:13Z")
**Bricker** , you know better. Judicial activism is only good when one agrees with the direction of the activism. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/34 "2008-03-27T21:08:48Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] But a judge with a brain would realize that it wasn’t his job to create new laws, and that a fair reading of the text of the existing law simply didn’t cover a right of privacy in a store. He could well believe, as everyone here posting does, that such a law is a very good idea… but that it doesn’t exist. [/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, could you take up **Princhester’s** challenge? I’m guessing that a good law could discuss what reasonable rights to privacy a person has in public locations, but I’m not sure what it’d look like. Maybe something like this: > [@](#): > > B. Every person who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or look upon any person without the knowledge and consent of such person **when the part of the person viewed is such that there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy** , or who publishes or distributes any image obtained from such act, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony. The violator shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. The bolded section is my attempt to replace “place” with something that covers such a situation. The law should reference the fact that when someone is wearing clothing over a part of their body, that person has a reasonable expectation to privacy as concerns that part of their body. This applies whether they are wearing a hajib or assless chaps. But I think my wording is unwieldy. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/35 "2008-03-27T22:31:00Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] I can’t recall what happened to that guy. I think he was in Maryland. [/QUOTE] He was sentenced to time served. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/36 "2008-03-27T23:37:11Z")
If indeed it does come down to the “public/private spaces” issue (where does a person have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy); I would venture that directly underneath the skirt of a 16-year-old girl (or anybody else) is a private space. Even if the girl \*herself \*is located in a public space. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/37 "2008-03-27T23:45:49Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Out of curiosity, could you take up **Princhester’s** challenge? I’m guessing that a good law could discuss what reasonable rights to privacy a person has in public locations, but I’m not sure what it’d look like. Maybe something like this: The bolded section is my attempt to replace “place” with something that covers such a situation. The law should reference the fact that when someone is wearing clothing over a part of their body, that person has a reasonable expectation to privacy as concerns that part of their body. This applies whether they are wearing a hajib or assless chaps. But I think my wording is unwieldy. Daniel [/QUOTE] Since when does somebody wearing “assless chaps” (presuming that means that they’re actually exposing their ass through them) have any expectation of privacy for parts of their body that they’re deliberately exposing? Or is that not what you’re saying? 'Cause it would suck if, while taking a photograph of a crowd somebody flashed you - and that made _you_ the criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/59ef9b/32.png) [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2008, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/38 "2008-03-28T00:31:44Z")
fwiw, from 2002: [linky](http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=voyeur20m0&date=20020920) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2008, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/39 "2008-03-28T02:02:49Z")
[QUOTE=D\_Odds] Judicial activism is only good when one agrees with the direction of the activism. [/QUOTE] Judician activism is one thing. A judicial decision that you are “in a place with a reasonable right to privacy” when you are in public would be unarguably incorrect. It would mean there was no such thing as a place that was not a place with a reasonable right to privacy. That, in turn, would make the relevant phrase redundant. The legislature could have left it out altogether. That is always inappropriate legal interpretation. \*\*Begbert2 \*\* I think you misunderstand \*\*LHD’s \*\* point. I think his point is precisely to contrast a hajib with assless chaps. That is, he is saying that _if you clearly are deliberately not_ wearing clothing over your ass, you have no reasonable expectation of the privacy of that part of your body. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2008, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686/40 "2008-03-28T05:42:01Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] \*\*Begbert2 \*\* I think you misunderstand \*\*LHD’s \*\* point. I think his point is precisely to contrast a hajib with assless chaps. That is, he is saying that _if you clearly are deliberately not_ wearing clothing over your ass, you have no reasonable expectation of the privacy of that part of your body. [/QUOTE] Close: my point (albeit with a hyperbolic example) is that the victim’s sluttiness is no defense. If someone managed to get a camera into a victim’s assless chaps and get a shot of their junk, that oughtta be just as illegal as shooting a picture under someone’s hajib of their sexy lustrous hair. The fact that someone is wearing clothes over that part of their body indicates that they don’t want other people to view it, and working to thwart their desired modesty is what ought to be against the law. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/victory-for-peeping-toms/442686.md?page=1)