Going out in public automatically exposes you to the possibility of having your picture taken. By leaving the safe confines of your Hobbit hole, you are abandoning your "reasonable expectation of privacy." One Massachusetts man asserts that this logic also applies to his habit of taking upskirt shots of women's genitals, since the fact that they were not cloaked in shrink wrap or pants mean that they are, essentially, out in the open. The skirt is more of a formality.
31-year-old Michael Robertson was busted in 2010 for allegedly attempting to take photos up women's dresses on Boston's subway, the Eagle Tribune reports. But rather than hang his head and pay his penance like a normal subway perv, Robertson's attorney is arguing that the women's crotches were actually asking to have their photos taken by waggling around in public like that.
“If a clothed person reveals a body part whether it was intentional or unintentional, he or she can not expect privacy,” Robertson's attorney, Michelle Menken, argued yesterday. She added that while the state's peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in bathrooms and dressing rooms, women and their associated body parts are fair game once in public.
And anyway, Menken said, the victims weren't even nude—they were wearing underwear! Taking a picture of underwear isn't really any different than taking a picture of a denim-covered knee. Or something.
Robertson is charged with two counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person, and faces two years in jail if convicted. But with a defense like that, we're confident that Robertson will be helping women's underwear gain the exposure it's been missing for years to come.
(h/t Jezebel)
