BastardofYoung

I am not out to vilify anyone here, I am just giving an opposing view to put it a little more into perspective here.

This ruling won't likely apply to those deemed "ugly" or whatever else. This ruling will give permission to those who wanna look for young, beautiful woman who are dressed provocatively. I very much doubt that this will lead to them taking pictures of old ladies, and overweight women and those who are deemed unattractive in the worldview of what is attractive. This will target mostly young women.

This message is saying that it is a females fault for wearing something like this, and implies that women only wear these short skirts cause they wanna be seen as sex objects, and their choice in attire is based on their choice to be sexualized.

It is when you really dig deep into it, a very worrisome ruling that has many possibilities to lead to much worse things.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

BastardofYoung

Yes, and no. Yes, a short skirt will attract pervs, but then again so will fully dressed females. I do not know where the distinction here starts and ends. Truly perverted people won't make that distinction though, they won't go "who do I target, the cute girl in the short skirt, or that cute girl in that sexy top and pants" they will most likely be wondering what they both look like naked, and may just aim to find out. The truly perverted, the sex offenders, the sick... they don't care either way.

No, because that doesn't mean that they want you to take pictures, and possibly spread them everywhere and risk being seen by the world like this.

Yes, we know that women will always be objectified, but these ruling basically makes it acceptable to do so.

There is objectifying someone mentally, and then there is this. Man, woman... we all think sexual thoughts, we all have objectified people in our own way. But the point to me is what someone thinks about, and what someone actually does are two different things. Go ahead, think whatever sexual thought you like in your head, and keep it to yourself, I think everyone will look at someone they find attractive and think to themselves "man, I would like to fuck that"... that is a natural human response and primitive thought, because of our instinct to reproduce... but if you act on that in a way that makes someone feel uncomfortable, and allows you to take that objectification out of your head and into something more, I worry more.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

Black Francis

I agree that's why i said he should be punished for what he did because these pictures are just not kept in private they tend to be shared all over the net without their consent.

Thank you for not thinking im a rapist. ^^

__________________
"Hey Kids you got to meet the MIGHTY PIXIES!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbRbCtIgW3A

GuitarBizarre

Because what you said, is pretty fucking rapey.

There is no excuse for rape. There is also no excuse for being a creepy fucking voyeur invading peoples personal privacy and exploiting that for cheap titillation.

If you're going to try and make that sound "normal" and explain that that's "Just the way things are", the main issue is that you're failing to address that those actions are STILL WRONG.

When someone posts a news story about a guy snapping and murdering his wife, nobody reasonable starts saying "Well women should take precautions to protect themselves against their husbands because we all know this can happen". Why? Because we know that the fucking guy snapping and murdering his wife is the one in the wrong.

In the same way, when you post a news story about creepshots or pick up artists making women feel uncomfortable by being quasi-rapey assholes, there SHOULD be a 100% negative response towards the guys being Quasi rapey assholes. There SHOULD NOT be any sort of discussion over whether it is women's role to try and prevent this. The women are not the issue. The men being rapey assholes are the issue, and you should be fucking treating them like it.

__________________

Janszoon

They're just ruling on what is covered by existing law. Hopefully this ruling spurs people to push for legislation that will make it a convictable offense.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

BastardofYoung

Yes, which is the point. He should be vilified and punished, but the ruling basically takes the opposite approach and says that the woman should be the one who is instead punished by making the act of doing so acceptable because she wore a short skirt.

Where is the punishment in all this when it is ruled that it is acceptable.

What is going to happen when someone basically beats the living shit out of someone on a bus for doing this? be it an angry boyfriend, an angry parent, or just some person who stands up to the person who does this? I wonder if by this ruling they will be punished more, they will see it as assault on somebody who was doing no wrong. In all these cases now, the victims of the crime are basically told it was their fault.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

butthead aka 216

I don't see how pick up artists factor in this discussion

BastardofYoung

No doubt. Should be convictable. Why it is not already? I do not know.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

Janszoon

It wasn't ruled that it was acceptable, it was ruled that it wasn't covered by the law as currently written. The article says that legislators are trying to get a law onto the governor's desk literally tomorrow to try and close the loophole.

It's a case of technology outpacing the law as the article mentions.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

GuitarBizarre

What Janszoon is saying, is that the role of the court in this situation wasn't to provide a punishment or judgement of an individual, it was to determine whether the existing laws actually applied here, in order to both prevent the law being taken too far out of a zone where it would actually apply, and also to potentially highlight the need for a review of that law to account for these specific cases.

In other words, the court's job here was to pave the way for laws to be rewritten in future to account for this and protect and safeguard citizens, without relying on precedent and laws taken out of context/skewed to suit a purpose.

This is an immediate setback, but in future it supposedly provides a way for a more black and white, and more clearly delineated law to be made and put into action, that will both safeguard the public and also simplify the process of obtaining a conviction for these actions.

At least, so the theory goes. I don't necessarily have full confidence in it, but I do understand that Janszoon is pointing out the role of the judgement made was not to "let off" anyone - it was to prevent an overly generous interpretation of an existing law, while still potentially recognising the need for a law covering that case.

__________________