E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, March 14, 2014

An absurd and misogynistic ruling

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

"Upskirting" is illegal under existing law, and the Massachusetts state supreme court got it dreadfully wrong when they vacated the conviction of a sexual deviant who was victimizing women on the subway. Pundits like Danny Cevallos can try to justify this misogynistic nonsense, but the text of the law could have been easily applied. The court had to split hairs in order to allow a sexual deviant to go unpunished for his crimes.

Let's review the text of the law:

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished...

Cevallos notes that the points of contention are whether the victims were "nude or partially nude" and whether they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Both of those points could easily have been decided in favor of the prosecution. "Partially nude" could have easily been interpreted to include photographing under a woman's skirt.

Furthermore, while no one has a reasonable expectation of 100% complete privacy in a public place, there are common-sense limits. Just because there are security cameras does not mean that law enforcement or a private citizen can look through someone's purse or wallet. Being photographed or recorded does not mean that photographing or recording under a woman's skirt is permissible. It is an absurd over-application of what is "reasonable" in public.

The problem when judges make absurd rulings that fly in the face of common sense is that those rulings can have unintended but easily foreseen consequences. In this case, one of the consequences can be vigilantism, leading to the maiming or even death of people taking these photos or videos. I do not condone vigilantism, because God gave the sword to the civil magistrate, not private citizens. But when the civil magistrate refuses to protect victims of crime, private citizens will inevitably take it on themselves. Women who are victimized by these crimes have fathers, brothers, sons and husbands, after all.

In a perfect world, these "judges" would be impeached, removed from office, and stripped of their law licenses. Since we do not live in a perfect world, there will sadly be no professional consequences for this egregious and inexcusable breach of public trust.


Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.


At March 15, 2014 at 11:15 AM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

"I do not condone vigilantism, because God gave the sword to the civil magistrate, not private citizens. But when the civil magistrate refuses to protect victims of crime, private citizens will inevitably take it on themselves."

Sounds exactly like the arguments favoring lynching in Dixie. "We-alls don't like it, o' course, but since it's inevitable, what the hell. Who brought the popcorn?"

At March 15, 2014 at 6:15 PM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

Yes, because people protecting female loved ones from sexual predators is exactly the same as killing people because of their skin pigmentation.

Your argument is absurd.

Post a Comment

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.