Comments on: Mall Voyeur Arrested on July 4th

By: paranoidlawyer

paranoidlawyer — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:49:34 +0000

I think everyone is thinking of Oklahoma?

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/80122/

By: What Constitutes “Voyeurism” In D.C.? - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:00:59 +0000

[...] a man was arrested on the National Mall for voyeurism after filming up women’s skirts on July 4th, some people were like, hey [...]

By: Emily WK

Emily WK — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:03:24 +0000

Apparently it isn't illegal in Seattle. Here is the link I found:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/87863_voyeur20.shtml

It seems that the relevant bit here, at least in Washington state, is where the person is located (in public), not what part of their body is being filmed. That strikes me as utterly nonsensical.

By: Em

Em — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:46:04 +0000

I think it might have been just a state law? In which case it may not apply.

By: Kim Ha

Kim Ha — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:07:34 +0000

What kind of court is that?!

I thought the rule was, you can't if they're just walking around. But if they're like, walking up some stairs or they're above on a ramp, and the video person below can see them, then it's fair game or whatever.

By: Amanda Hess

Amanda Hess — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:34:35 +0000

Emily, I seem to remember that, too. Can't remember which jurisdiction. Anyone?

By: Emily WK

Emily WK — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:23:49 +0000

Didn't a court recently rule that it wasn't illegal to videotape or photograph up women's skirts? Dangit, I can't remember that, but holy mother of god does that make ZERO sense.

If I wanted the world to see my underpants, I wouldn't wear a skirt. There you go.