Peeping Tom's and Privacy Expectations.

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Ok, I don't post here often so I am not sure how much I am supposed to post to be considered the proper amount of commentary. I found this story on a different website that linked THIS one.

Score Two for the Perverts
3/19/2008 By Brenda Zurita

Imagine taking your 16-year-old daughter to the store and having a pervert aim a camera up her skirt and take pictures. You would expect the man to be arrested, tried and convicted for being a peeping tom. But if you live in Oklahoma, you would be wrong. Only two out of the three steps in the process happened; the pervert was not sent to jail. (The American Heritage College dictionary defines a "pervert" as "one who practices sexual perversion" and "perversion" as "a sexual practice or act considered deviant." In my opinion, this man is a pervert.)

Instead, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 4-1 to dismiss the charges because Riccardo Gino Ferrante and the young girl were both in a public place when he decided to photograph her private parts. The "brilliant" piece of judicial reasoning behind this travesty of justice goes something like this: The "Peeping Tom" statute requires the victim to be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy."

When did being in one's underpants while wearing clothing over them not constitute a reasonable expectation of privacy of your private parts?

The 16-year-old teenager was not Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton out and about town sans panties. Unlike those celebrities, the teen was not dressed for and ready to be photographed getting out of cars without a care as to who sees what they are purposely revealing. According to FoxNews.com, "Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt."

This is the case of a young girl's sense of safety, privacy and decency being violated by a pervert with a camera.

If the young girl had turned around and kicked that man square in his private parts, she would probably have been charged with assault. I guess it would not have been considered self-defense against a pervert, as the appeals court says he did not commit a crime.

Isn't it interesting that the U.S. Supreme Court managed to find a right to privacy in the penumbras of the Constitution to support abortion, but the Oklahoma courts cannot find a right to privacy of your body parts while wearing clothing?

Ladies in Oklahoma, you might want to reconsider your wardrobe for spring and summer. Put away those billowy skirts and flowery dresses; you should probably follow Hillary Clinton's lead and wear pantsuits! You will be somewhat warmer than may be comfortable, but you will not be enabling those peeping toms to snap pictures as you are freely walking and enjoying the public spaces and properties around your state. Make it more difficult for the perverts and maybe they'll move on to Arkansas or Kansas.

Public schools, public libraries and government buildings are places that women will want to avoid. According to the appeals court, unless you are in a lady's restroom or locker room, views of your panties are fair game. Since the girl that was photographed without her consent was a minor, it seems that children in schools are also fair game. Perverts can have a field day snapping pictures of children at recess on the playground.

This brings up an equally egregious case in the Seattle area. Jack McClellan, a self-proclaimed pedophile, created a website for pedophiles wherein he posted pictures of young girls he had snapped at playgrounds, family-friendly events, or anywhere there were young girls gathered, and rated the locations on a scale of one to five hearts, a five-heart location being full of young girls. The website also provided a guide to pedophiles on how not to get caught. A Foxnews.com article quotes Rebecca Hover of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department as saying, "As disturbing and offensive as we find this, there's no evidence of a crime, or even suspicion of illegal activity."

That website has since been taken down by the Internet service provider. After moving to California and then back to Portland, Oregon, Mr. McClellan is considering starting up his old website again. The Foxnews.com article said about his first website, "McClellan says his purpose is to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls. He admitted to FOX News that his 'age of attraction' is between 3 and 11 years old."

What is wrong with our laws today that actually having your privacy violated in a most humiliating way is allowed, even of minors, as long as it happens in a public place?

It is a sad day indeed when a pervert has more rights than his victim.

Personally, if it were my kid, I would not be worried about calling a cop. I would call an ambulance. They cops would arrive, alright, to arrest me!

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
I understand there reasoning though I don't necessarily agree with it. I think it slightly is good it got rejected as in appeals a higher court can clarify the law a bit better.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
What about telling your kids to hide the parts of their body they don't want the public to see? My almost-teen daughter damn sure doest wear cleavage-bearing tops, or "booty-shorts" with her ass hanging out for all to see.

I'd also like to see the "news" report of this incident, rather than the somewhat biased article posted. Having someone literally shove his hand up your skirt to take a picture would be a definite breach of your personal space, but it that what really happened?

I'm glad the courts are still erring on the side of freedom and personal rights, even when "sticky" issues like this come up.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What about telling your kids to hide the parts of their body they don't want the public to see? My almost-teen daughter damn sure doest wear cleavage-bearing tops, or "booty-shorts" with her ass hanging out for all to see.

I'd also like to see the "news" report of this incident, rather than the somewhat biased article posted. Having someone literally shove his hand up your skirt to take a picture would be a definite breach of your personal space, but it that what really happened?

I'm glad the courts are still erring on the side of freedom and personal rights, even when "sticky" issues like this come up.

That's right, it's the girls fault :roll: Girls have been wearing skirts since when....the 1920s?
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What about telling your kids to hide the parts of their body they don't want the public to see? My almost-teen daughter damn sure doest wear cleavage-bearing tops, or "booty-shorts" with her ass hanging out for all to see.

I'd also like to see the "news" report of this incident, rather than the somewhat biased article posted. Having someone literally shove his hand up your skirt to take a picture would be a definite breach of your personal space, but it that what really happened?

I'm glad the courts are still erring on the side of freedom and personal rights, even when "sticky" issues like this come up.

That's right, it's the girls fault :roll: Girls have been wearing skirts since when....the 1920s?

Yes, that's obviously what I said, CPA. :thumbsup:
 

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What about telling your kids to hide the parts of their body they don't want the public to see? My almost-teen daughter damn sure doest wear cleavage-bearing tops, or "booty-shorts" with her ass hanging out for all to see.

I'd also like to see the "news" report of this incident, rather than the somewhat biased article posted. Having someone literally shove his hand up your skirt to take a picture would be a definite breach of your personal space, but it that what really happened?

I'm glad the courts are still erring on the side of freedom and personal rights, even when "sticky" issues like this come up.

FoxNews
Tulsa World News
OKHOR <--- new law

Erm... She was a 16yr old girl, shopping in Target with her father. This perv went up to her and situated the camera up her skirt. That is hardly the same thing as a girl walking around half dressed and getting photographed from across the street. And it is hardly the same as all the girls who get stupid during Madri Gra. I could understand their getting this kind of ruling. But this was a young girl, with her dad, in Target.

And I would hope that wearing panties and a skirt would be considered hiding their private parts.


 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What about telling your kids to hide the parts of their body they don't want the public to see? My almost-teen daughter damn sure doest wear cleavage-bearing tops, or "booty-shorts" with her ass hanging out for all to see.

I'd also like to see the "news" report of this incident, rather than the somewhat biased article posted. Having someone literally shove his hand up your skirt to take a picture would be a definite breach of your personal space, but it that what really happened?

I'm glad the courts are still erring on the side of freedom and personal rights, even when "sticky" issues like this come up.

you can't compare the two. one you have a girl dressing like a slut. the other a perv is bending over and putting the camera to go UP her skirt.

the girl did NOTHING wrong. the guy should have been found guilty.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
The judge was just enforcing the law as it was written. The law said it had to be at a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and Target is not such a place.
I don't see why people get all upset with judges enforcing the laws instead of rewriting them.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
The judge was just enforcing the law as it was written. The law said it had to be at a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and Target is not such a place.
I don't see why people get all upset with judges enforcing the laws instead of rewriting them.

true the law needs to be rewriten. while you do not have a expectation of privacy you do have the expectation that someone wont look up her skirt.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What about telling your kids to hide the parts of their body they don't want the public to see? My almost-teen daughter damn sure doest wear cleavage-bearing tops, or "booty-shorts" with her ass hanging out for all to see.

I'd also like to see the "news" report of this incident, rather than the somewhat biased article posted. Having someone literally shove his hand up your skirt to take a picture would be a definite breach of your personal space, but it that what really happened?

I'm glad the courts are still erring on the side of freedom and personal rights, even when "sticky" issues like this come up.

you can't compare the two. one you have a girl dressing like a slut. the other a perv is bending over and putting the camera to go UP her skirt.

the girl did NOTHING wrong. the guy should have been found guilty.
I'm not implying AT ALL that the girl is at fault. :iconofaguybeatinghisheadagainstafuckingwall;

My point is, if you take the opposite route for this ruling - that you have an absolute right to privacy in any public area - doesn't that open up the door for sluts to dress slutty, then attempt to have people arrested when they can't help but to see what is being revealed?

It's a very fine line with a slippery slope on either side. Did the ruling fall too far to one side? Maybe, but that's not any worse that falling too far on the other. You judge laws on the merits of the laws and their implications, not on appeals to emotion.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What about telling your kids to hide the parts of their body they don't want the public to see? My almost-teen daughter damn sure doest wear cleavage-bearing tops, or "booty-shorts" with her ass hanging out for all to see.

I'd also like to see the "news" report of this incident, rather than the somewhat biased article posted. Having someone literally shove his hand up your skirt to take a picture would be a definite breach of your personal space, but it that what really happened?

I'm glad the courts are still erring on the side of freedom and personal rights, even when "sticky" issues like this come up.

you can't compare the two. one you have a girl dressing like a slut. the other a perv is bending over and putting the camera to go UP her skirt.

the girl did NOTHING wrong. the guy should have been found guilty.
I'm not implying AT ALL that the girl is at fault. :iconofaguybeatinghisheadagainstafuckingwall;

My point is, if you take the opposite route for this ruling - that you have an absolute right to privacy in any public area - doesn't that open up the door for sluts to dress slutty, then attempt to have people arrested when they can't help but to see what is being revealed?

It's a very fine line with a slippery slope on either side. Did the ruling fall too far to one side? Maybe, but that's not any worse that falling too far on the other. You judge laws on the merits of the laws and their implications, not on appeals to emotion.

I don't see the slippery slope. in one you have a guy sticking a camera in aposition to take a picture UP a 16yr olds skirt wich is provable. the other you have a slut sayins someone looked at her.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
This ruling was a miscarriage of justice. A woman walking around with a dress has a reasonable expectation that nobody is going to pop a camera under there and take a picture. That's just common sense.

The thing about the pedophile website is a bit harder to judge; overall we should expect to get photographed in public, regardless of what the pics are used for even if abhorrently.
What about telling your kids to hide the parts of their body they don't want the public to see? My almost-teen daughter damn sure doest wear cleavage-bearing tops, or "booty-shorts" with her ass hanging out for all to see.
At least read article before commenting on it: "Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt." .
The judge was just enforcing the law as it was written. The law said it had to be at a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and Target is not such a place.
I don't see why people get all upset with judges enforcing the laws instead of rewriting them.
This was her crotch, not her face. If he'd only taken a picture, the ruling would have been good, but something that's hidden by clothes unless you kneel out of your way with your pedo-cam is going beyond.

Defenders of this ruling are essentially condoning me to go around with a camera attached to a stick with a remote shutter and just endlessly take pictures up women's skirts if they're in public. I wonder what they'd say about somebody taking pics in a locker room at a public gym and putting them online. Afterall, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy? Somewhat; others are there but we certainly assume that common sense dictates no cameras allowed.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: waggy

you can't compare the two. one you have a girl dressing like a slut. the other a perv is bending over and putting the camera to go UP her skirt.

the girl did NOTHING wrong. the guy should have been found guilty.
I'm not implying AT ALL that the girl is at fault. :iconofaguybeatinghisheadagainstafuckingwall;

My point is, if you take the opposite route for this ruling - that you have an absolute right to privacy in any public area - doesn't that open up the door for sluts to dress slutty, then attempt to have people arrested when they can't help but to see what is being revealed?

It's a very fine line with a slippery slope on either side. Did the ruling fall too far to one side? Maybe, but that's not any worse that falling too far on the other. You judge laws on the merits of the laws and their implications, not on appeals to emotion.

I don't see the slippery slope. in one you have a guy sticking a camera in aposition to take a picture UP a 16yr olds skirt wich is provable. the other you have a slut sayins someone looked at her.

But there's a progression between the two.

- Guy forcibly bends girl over and takes picture
- Guy sneakily places camera under skirt and takes picture
- Guy stands under stairwell and takes pictures
- Guy takes picture as wind gust blows up dress
- Guy takes picture as girl bends over to pick up dropped item
- Guy takes picture of girl wearing too-short skirt
- Guy takes picture of streaker running through the mall
- Guy takes picture of model posing nude for photos

At what point in the above do things go from obviously OK (last item) to obviously illegal (first item)? It there some distinct action that creates a huge gulf, or is it a slow progression, with some gray-area between the two extremes? Does the intent or actions of the victim ever come into play?

I agree that, based on what appears to be the facts of the case, that this guy seems to have gone too far, but at what point would he have been in the clear?


I assumed - perhaps mistakenly - this was posted in P&N to generate discussion, not as a fluff, OT-esque piece where we can all gang up and yell "Rabble-rabble" in unison and feel good about ourselves.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
The judge was just enforcing the law as it was written. The law said it had to be at a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and Target is not such a place.
I don't see why people get all upset with judges enforcing the laws instead of rewriting them.

I'd say if a girl is wearing a skirt then she has an expectation of privacy for the area between the bottom of the skirth and the ground, such that if someone places a camera stealthily under the skirt they have violated her zone of privacy. You can argue what if the wind blew or what if she was standing on a balcony and someone looked up or change whatever other facts you want to make THIS situation anything other than what it was. A girl in a store, a guy positioning a camera under her legs. Lock the sicko up.

Let me echo that if this was my daughter, the "photographer" would need an ambulance and let him bring whatever case he wants, I'd get some jurors with daughters and paint the scenario for them of their innocent daughters having their upskirt shots distributed all over the internet, and I'd countersue for invasion of privacy. g'luck chuck

Another free pass here: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news...80314_1_A13_spanc08444

Oklahoma politicians have more important things to worry about: http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/EWThrockmorton/11571554/
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
The judge was just enforcing the law as it was written. The law said it had to be at a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and Target is not such a place.
I don't see why people get all upset with judges enforcing the laws instead of rewriting them.

Supports of judges taking strict interpretation of the laws as written, take note.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81

"One of the accepted rules of traditional statutory interpretation is that the language of a statute should be interpreted to avoid a manifestly absurd result, on the theory that the legislature could not have intended a result which does not comport with common sense."

Strict constructionists beware: I think we've hit an absurd result with this one. When sticking a camera under a 16 year old girl's skirt to snap a pic is LEGAL, well, that's absurd.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: sirjonk

"One of the accepted rules of traditional statutory interpretation is that the language of a statute should be interpreted to avoid a manifestly absurd result, on the theory that the legislature could not have intended a result which does not comport with common sense."

Strict constructionists beware: I think we've hit an absurd result with this one. When sticking a camera under a 16 year old girl's skirt to snap a pic is LEGAL, well, that's absurd.

Not enough info above to tell if they are strict constructionists, or just used some weasely logic to "legislate" what "privacy" is?

No right to privacy in a Target? "Mam, Security here - hike that skirt, we're checking for shoplifters"

Well, at least all the Okie perv's now know where to hang out and cop a look without getting busted. :disgust:

Fern
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
They tried him for the wrong charge. If the girl or her parents filed a sexual harassment charge against him, they would have won, because following her around and putting a camera up her skirt is clearly harassment.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,910
238
106
One thing comes to mind when I heard it was a sixteen year old, production of child pornography. The guy with the camera needs to be in jail for such perversion.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
They tried him for the wrong charge. If the girl or her parents filed a sexual harassment charge against him, they would have won, because following her around and putting a camera up her skirt is clearly harassment.
Originally posted by: MadRat
One thing comes to mind when I heard it was a sixteen year old, production of child pornography. The guy with the camera needs to be in jail for such perversion.

Both valid arguments.
 

Jiggz

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2001
4,329
0
76
The court obviously erred on its judgment on this one. The location (at the store)in this particular case is not the point of interest in defining privacy, rather it's the personal space of the girl. Meaning from her head dress, i.e. hair, all the way down to the bottom of her feet! If she wasn't wearing any dress or pants and blouse and just wearing bikini like a bathing suit, the definition still doesn't change. Meaning you cannot stick in a camera between her legs or breast just because there is no skirt or blouse coverings.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Our right-wing equivalents in the fundamentalist Muslim world are bragging how they don't have this problem, but making fun of the US for having 'perverts who photograph up young girls' skirts', I'll bet.

Just as our righties are myopic, I'll bet they are too, not caring a whit for the west's value on freedom to balance this issue.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,910
238
106
The feds could easily justify getting involved in this case at the store because of the FTC's right to regulate stores that use electronic point of sales that travel across interstate telephone networks. The federal agencies of all types use this tactic a lot to justify all sorts of things, especially the Fair Labour Act.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: jpeyton
They tried him for the wrong charge. If the girl or her parents filed a sexual harassment charge against him, they would have won, because following her around and putting a camera up her skirt is clearly harassment.
Originally posted by: MadRat
One thing comes to mind when I heard it was a sixteen year old, production of child pornography. The guy with the camera needs to be in jail for such perversion.

Both valid arguments.

No, not really. In the first instance, this isn't sexual harrassment because that is defined in the context of a workplace, which doesn't apply here as the 16-year old wasn't employed by Target nor is the perv a co-worker. In the second instance, a photo of a girl's panties is not child pornography, or many of the inserts in the Sunday newspaper would be considered child pornography. Even pictures of naked children are not considered child porn unless the poses are sexual in nature.

I can understand the ruling from a legal point of view, and I think people need to think about the case of this girl walking up an open staircase. If she were doing that, and the guy snapped a picture looking up, the case becomes one of an opportune moment as I'm sure most women are aware that they are "exposed" when walking up such a staircase.

I am wondering if the case could somehow be pursued from that aspect, namely that the guy had to deliberately place himself and the camera into a position to view under the girl's skirt instead of finding himself in a position to "catch a glimpse". In other words, it was the perv's actions which breached privacy expectations, not the venue in which it took place. By necessity, it would introduce a motive element to the case, but the production of child pornography also contains such an element in some cases (most are blatantly obvious, however).

I agree with the post above that the expectation of privacy should be centered on the girl and not on Target. If Target's dressing room has an expectation of privacy from photography while unclothed, then it seems to me that being clothed outside of the dressing room in the same store should imply an expectation of privacy from prying photography.

I would expect some legislation from Oklahoma fairly quickly.