[Content Note: Rape culture.]
"This Court finds that no individual clothed and positioned in such a manner in a public area in broad daylight in the presence of countless other individuals could have a reasonable expectation of privacy."—Washington, DC, Superior CourtJudge Juliet McKenna, in her ruling dismissing "a case brought against a man named Christopher Cleveland that claimed he took up-skirt photos of women without their consent. It's not that he didn't take the photos—he did; the police caught him with several on his camera—but instead that doing so isn't illegal. ...Because Cleveland did not go to 'extraordinary lengths' to capture the images, McKenna argued, the charges should be thrown out."
Got that? Women have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" from strangers taking up-skirt photos without our consent, as long as those strangers don't go to "extraordinary lengths" to take them.
Cleveland was arrested after US Park Police "noticed he was taking photos of women in dresses who were standing above him on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial." So, basically, this ruling says that if you don't want a stranger taking an up-skirt photo of you, don't wear a dress. Or use stairs. Or exist in public.
If you're thinking, "Hey, that sure sounds an awful lot like tasking victims with sexual assault prevention," you are correct. Instead of tasking people with not being sexual predators, once again women are expected to limit their lives and choices in order to avoid being victimized.
My contempt for this ruling, it is infinite.
[H/T to Shaker RachelB, in comments.]
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus