SPHINCTER SPOTLIGHT: Massachusetts Lawmakers – Upskirt Shot Criminalizers

Sphincter SpotlightJust one day after the state’s highest court bravely affirmed the civil rights of uncivil people to engage in less-than-civil activities, Massachusetts lawmakers passed a bill dashing the court’s recent opinion that even scumbags have certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of clandestine hoohah pictures.

It was a huge, yet short-lived, victory for countless pasty Irishmen who will never see a clam in the flesh except in their chowder.

In what was undoubtedly a split-tail decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Snatchachusetts ruled Wednesday that it was not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person’s clothing. The justices overruled a lower court that had upheld charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police who set up a sting operation after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up unsuspecting female riders’ skirts and dresses.

Marilyn-Monroe-Upskirt-Statue
Looking up skirts is as American as cherry pie and Marilyn Monroe.

It was a huge, yet short-lived, victory for countless pasty Irishmen who will never see a clam in the flesh except in their chowder.

In discussing what was then Massachuslits’ peeping Tom law, the court wrote that the statute “does not penalize the secret photographing of partial nudity, but of ‘a person who is … partially nude.'” The court stated its interpretation of “a person who is … partially nude” as “a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her,” which meant “a female passenger … who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing.”

It was a truly remarkable display by the court of splitting both legal and pubic hairs.

But of course, many people got their panties in a wad over the ruling. And they feared some pervert in Boston with a hidden cellphone camera would legally photograph those wadded-up panties.

So, because of a wholly un-American legal concept called a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” deviant-hating state lawmakers frantically scurried together and fecklessly voted to make such photography punishable by 2½ to 5 years in jail and thousands of dollars in fines, depending on the age of the “victim.” The measure was then gutlessly signed into law earlier today by Gov. Devall Patrick.

In the end, not only have the Bay State’s legislature and governor trampled on the rights of the more depraved denizens of Muffachusetts, but they also thwarted an inevitable economic boon for the pantsuit industry.RedShtick-Top-ColumnStop

About Editorial Staff

Editorial Staff
A random collection of overqualified, underachieving smartasses.

Check Also

SPHINCTER SPOTLIGHT: Haters of Tasha Clark-Amar, Council on Aging Executive Director

Haters, like the media, state ethics watchdogs, and people with a sense of decency, need to lay off Tasha Clark-Amar.