Legislative history and intent, including federal statutes and regulations, can have an incredible bearing on today’s court cases. One controversial Massachusetts case, Commonwealth v. Robertson, ruled that upskirt photography is legal. The state’s high court argued that current law does not directly address the voyeuristic act, and — therefore — it cannot be ruled unlawful. The ruling took place yesterday, March 5.
Legislative Intent: Would It Change the High Court’s Ruling?
Many local and federal statutes and regulations are too vague (or, in some cases, actually too specific). For that reason, many courts will consider legislative intent — or what may be implicitly suggested from written legislation. Legislative intent involves close analysis of current legislation (with an in-depth look at the particular phrasing, etc.) and often a good deal of legal research. Legislative research carefully considers legal precedence and notable cases; this knowledge typically sheds light on current legal issues. The reasonable follow-up question then is, would this have changed yesterday’s ruling?
And The Answer Is…
Unfortunately, probably not. Massachusetts’ high court ruled that the cited statute, “Peeping Tom” legislation, simply does not mention upskirt photography. The statute reads: “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, is committing a crime.”
“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,” the high court ruled in a controversial decision. Legislative intent, unfortunately, did not seem to be up for debate or further discussion. Many are outraged by the ruling and calling for more comprehensive legislation to protect U.S. citizens.
Is upskirt photography legal? A Massachusetts court ruled yes. Legislative intent did not come through — this time. The court carefully considered current laws and legal precedence.
