In the WTF category of insane court rulings, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts overturned a peeping-Tom type decision.

I guess the ladies should be so happy when some perv says, 'smile, you're on Upskirt TV."

A man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday.

The Supreme Judicial Court overruled a lower court that had upheld charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police who set up a sting after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up female riders' skirts and dresses.

The ruling immediately prompted top Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to update state law.

Existing so-called Peeping Tom laws protect people from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but the way the law is written, it does not protect clothed people in public areas, the court said.

"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 court said in its ruling. 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," the court said.

The SJC said that while such actions should be illegal, they are not, given the way state law is written. Suffolk County prosecutors said their interpretation of the state's Peeping Tom law was that "upskirt" photos are illegal.

District Attorney Dan Conley said prosecutors are hoping state lawmakers will change the wording of the statute by the end of this legislative session.

I'm waiting for some low life to take a perverted picture of a young lady, she slaps him in the face for being a fu*king creep and he shoots her claiming the right to defend himself because he felt his life was in danger. Oh, and she had a gun too.

Lisa McIntire writes:

Privacy, schmivacy.

An expectation of legal protection against upskirt creepshots on public transit is just silly! If you didn't want someone to take pictures up your dress, you shouldn't have left the house, you harlot!