WOTY -- "upskirting"

[Joel S. Berson]

I sent an email message earlier today to the office of Suffolk DA
Daniel Conley, suggesting that they consider referring the case to
the U.S. District Attorney.  I got a much quicker response from his
office than I suspect the Massachusetts General Court will have.  The
response was "Thanks very much", and I'll pass it on to several
people in the office.  Whether that means the legal people have
thought of this or not I can't tell; the person I sent the email to
is in the press office.

Joel

At 3/6/2014 02:13 PM, Christopher Philippo wrote:
>...
>On Mar 6, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at ATT.NET> wrote:
> > The "undergarment clad" aspect would be the legal/factual issue
> in a Federal case.  Would "tights" be considered an undergarment if
> they were being worn underneath a skirt?
>
>Enough dictionaries define undergarment in such a way that tights
>fit the definition.  The legislative intent of the law ought also be
>taken into consideration, something judges too often
>ignore.  Likewise, there's the intent of the perp.  Presumably he
>didn't know until after he took photos and reviewed them what his
>victims were wearing under their skirts, and he knew there was the
>possibility that his victims might not be wearing anything.  He also
>would have no way of necessarily knowing that the person he was
>photographing was over eighteen; pornographers have record keeping
>requirements to meet.  One also wonders whether he was sharing the
>photos after taking them, and whether he obtained payment of any
>kind for them, which could potentially raise a number of other issues.
>
>A very different decision might have been rendered by the judge in
>the case had the accused been engaged in uprobing.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org