A long time ago when I read Reader's Digest on a regular basis because someone I knew had a subscription, I also masochistically read the "That's Outrageous!" section. I hated reading this section, which detailed odd legislation and court decisions (such as when a criminal breaks into someone's house and gets shot when the homeowner defends his property, then the criminal sues the homeowner for shooting him - and wins). The section was like watching a horror movie - you want to look away, but you can't. I couldn't believe some of the things that actually occur in this country, but I couldn't stop reading, either.
Today I ran across a story that would be a perfect candidate for "That's Outrageous!" (if RD still includes that section?).
Apparently, it is not against the law in Oklahoma for idiots to stick a camera under a woman's dress in public and take a picture.
Because, according to the state Court of Criminal Appeals, the woman is in a public space where there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" (which is sort of the litmus test phrase when dealing with legal issues of privacy).
In a weird, twisted world, one could see how the court's argument makes sense to some people - the woman IS "in public." (The incident took place at a store.)
However, you'd think that there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" UNDER a woman's dress. I GUESS NOT.
One of the dissenting appeals judges wrote, "In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress."
And the peeping pervert's defense attorney (why must we implicate poor random "Tom"?) blames the law for allowing such a loophole. Absolutely, utterly ridiculous. This means there's another issue to write your state legislator about and make sure that the LOOPHOLE is closed in your state.
In the mean time, I refuse to change my clothes in deference to the depraved.
Ladies, I say that when some jerk comes around with a camera and tries to pull this stunt, scream "Sexual harassment!" That kind of currency goes a lot farther these days.
And make sure you're wearing a beautiful dress, so that you'll look good on TV when you're interviewed.
1 comment:
THe worst part is that this girl was only 16. Adults would be able to defend themselves better but a sixteen year old girl is more likely to freeze at such an unusual and firghtening situation.
Makes me wonder if hyper conservatives are going to start making their daughters wear pants in OK.
Post a Comment