'Upskirt' Pics Now Illegal in Massachusetts
After court ruling, lawmakers worked up a quick bill, and the governor signed it
By Arden Dier, Newser Staff
Posted Mar 7, 2014 9:17 AM CST
Updated Mar 7, 2014 10:49 AM CST
   (Shutterstock)

(Newser) – If you were outraged by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that deemed "upskirt" photos legal, you can turn that frown upside down. Just a day after the decision, state lawmakers voted yesterday to outlaw photos of "sexual or intimate parts" secretly snapped in public in an "unusually swift action," USA Today reports. The bill, which flew through the House and Senate, carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail and a $5,000 fine if the victim is 18 or older, and five years in jail and a $10,000 fine if underage. Gov. Deval Patrick signed it into law this morning, reports CNN.

"It is sexual harassment," Senate President Therese Murray said after the bill's unanimous approval. "Woman and children should be able to go to public places without feeling that they are not protected by the law." (Though good news, gentlemen: It applies to male victims, too.) The state's Peeping Tom law only protects people who are nude or partially nude, like someone in a changing room; the new bill applies to anyone who "photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils" a person's private parts without consent. "Not only did we get it done quickly, but I think there was a feeling that we did it right," the House speaker said. "We wanted to make sure that this would be a law that would pass all legal questions that could arise."

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
'Upskirt' Pics Won't Be Legal for Long in Massachusetts is...
6%
2%
5%
71%
2%
13%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 75 comments
jimpeel
Mar 11, 2014 1:18 AM CDT
For those expressing outrage at this decision: They read the law AS WRITTEN and interpreted it AS WRITTEN; and the CURRENT law AS WRITTEN did not include upskirt photography in its wording. They were correct when they stated that a person in public, who is wearing clothing, is not "nude or partially nude" AS WRITTEN in the law regardless of the presence or absence of undergarments under the clothing. The law AS WRITTEN did not account for current technology and the miniaturization of cameras or their incorporation into cell phones. Hell, when the law was written cell phones weren't yet invented. You should be celebrating the fact that a panel of judges finally got it right without inserting personal bias, conjecture, and supposition into the law. They read it AS WRITTEN and they got it right.
fractal
Mar 9, 2014 7:14 PM CDT
Lot of voyeurs on this thread...
People_Suck
Mar 9, 2014 12:23 AM CST
Damn, now I have to put the mirrors on my shoes again.