Sinkies don't take pictures of upskirt. Sinkies take selfies of themselves wearing a skirt.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Man gets three weeks' jail for taking upskirt photos
- Thread starter krafty
- Start date
Sinkies don't take pictures of upskirt. Sinkies take selfies of themselves wearing a skirt.
So many differences, I'm surprised you can't differentiate the two.
1. One is paid, the other not
2. One is agreed, the other not
3. One is shameless, the other not
4. One is paid audience, the other not
5. One is peeping, the other is ogling
......so many other differences, I give up thinking, cos it's boring shit.
1. One is paid, the other not
2. One is agreed, the other not
3. One is shameless, the other not
4. One is paid audience, the other not
5. One is peeping, the other is ogling
......so many other differences, I give up thinking, cos it's boring shit.
Just a thought: what's the difference between looking upskirt and looking at the models during Victoria Secret show?
one is beauty in public display and the other is beast in pubic hideaway.
This is like asking what's the difference between the have nots and the haves. No $$$ look upskirt and thta's against the law. Have money look upskirt and that is fashion.
Just a thought: what's the difference between looking upskirt and looking at the models during Victoria Secret show?
Just a thought: what's the difference between looking upskirt and looking at the models during Victoria Secret show?
I think after a night of ponder with the collective wisdom of our SBF brothers here, I can only summarize that one is an expensive pubic display, the other is priceless private collection
is taking pic of a mini skirt gal an outrage of her modesty?
is outrage a criminal offence or just an offence?
if I am careless and you can see everything, it is not your fault. so why report you?
The big difference is one wants you to see ( more like ogling) but the other one don't want you to see
But in this case is not about being careless or not. That guy stood behind the victim on an escalator and took her upskirt photos. Of course if you don't feel violated or insulted, you can just let him off and don't report.
sometimes, it is not the girl who complained. it could be a security guard.
So my question is, according to the law, is it an offence for a guy to take pics of me going up an escalator?
angel's face ?
Personally, if it's a public place, the guy didn't touch the girl, just simply peeked or ogled, and the girl didn't feel violated – it is not a offence. Taking pictures of people in a public place is not a crime as well.
Even if the girl took offence, so what? I can take offence because a gay keeps staring at me, but does it make it an offence?
Massachusetts court says 'upskirt' photos are legal
By Haimy Assefa, CNN
March 6, 2014 -- Updated 1233 GMT (2033 HKT)
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing -- a practice known as "upskirting" -- prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.
The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.
"A female passenger on a MBTA trolley 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," wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.
CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said the law has not caught up to technology and called it an assault on a woman's right to privacy.
"I think the courts got it wrong," Hostin said. "The spirit of the law makes it clear it is about the person's privacy."
The ruling stems from the case against Michael Robertson, 32, who was arrested in 2010 and accused of using his cell phone to take pictures and record video up the skirts and dresses of women on the trolley, according to court documents.
Two separate complaints were filed against Robertson with the transit police. Authorities then staged "a decoy operation" to catch Robertson, who was eventually arrested and charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity. Police observed him point a cell phone video camera up the dress of a female officer, court documents state.
Wednesday's ruling reversed a previous decision by a lower court, which had denied a motion by Robertson seeking the dismissal of the case, said a statement from the Suffolk County district attorney's office.
"In sum, we interpret the phrase, 'a person who is ... partially nude' in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean 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," the high court ruled.
The ruling that state law "does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA."
Prosecutors had argued that the current statute, which prohibits secretly photographing or videotaping a person who is "nude or partially nude," includes upskirting, according to documents.
But Robertson's lawyers argued that the female passenger on the trolley was not "nude or partially nude" and was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, according to court documents.
"Every person, male or female, has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothing," Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley said in a statement Wednesday. "If the statute as written doesn't protect that privacy, then I'm urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does."
Robertson's lawyer, Michelle Menken, did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Robertson faced misdemeanor charges punishable by up to two and half years in prison.
lianbeng replies: everyday go up n down the MRT escalators sure can see upskirts n downblouses mah!
salah meh?
the moral of the story is that sinkie charbor got gold pussies...
lianbeng replies: everyday go up n down the MRT escalators sure can see upskirts n downblouses mah!
Yes, if I am careless and I accidentally exposed my body, I think the guy didn't commit any offence
the moral of the story is that sinkie charbor got gold pussies...
no lah...some girls are more inhibited and shy and felt violated if the public confronts the guy. she may be forced to confront the guy too. but if not one raise any hooha, she may not mind and will not report
Just a thought: what's the difference between looking upskirt and looking at the models during Victoria Secret show?
patricia mok is always accusing hunks who molest her in pubs.
question: are those accused men NORMAL?
better question: is she NORMAL? to think "normal" guys would seriously be interested in her?
Similar threads
