So a woman riding the Boston MTA has no reasonable expectation that her privacy will not be invaded simply because she is wearing a skirt or dress??
That's not what the judges said:
What they said is that if you are going to prosecute someone for photographing a person who is (and I quote)
"Nude or partially nude"..
Then the victim must, actually be "Nude or partially nude."
I understand the judges decision.
The legislature must now simply amend the law to cover such circumstances, and that can be done.
The judges didn't make a moral statement about liking the practice and fully supporting the defendant's fetish.....
They ruled according the letter of what the law said, not what they personally thought it should say.
Change the law, and the justices will condemn the man every day.
Activist judges who take license with a hallucinated abstraction like a "right to privacy" are quite specifically the kinds of judges who maintain that women have the right to slaughter un-born children in abortion mills.
I don't think the justices liked their ruling one bit, but they did their job. They applied the law AS WRITTEN. Judges aren't Philosopher kings, nor do we want them to be. We don't want them re-writing a law from the bench.....Especially in regards to criminal proceedings. We don't have to like it, but it's a dangerous precedent to have a judge re-define a fully clothed person as:
"Nude or partially nude".
Because, strictly speaking, they weren't.
I knew Massachusetts is mostly insane, but that's really out there.
The Legislature will amend the law to cover such cases, and I don't doubt every judge on that bench would support such an idea, and hereafter rule accordingly.
That's how the law is supposed to work.
