The top court in Massachusetts last week recognized Michael Richardson’s “constitutional right” to shoot “upskirts” — photos up women’s skirts, taken without consent.
Gross.
Thankfully, Bay State lawmakers quickly resolved things with a new ban on “upskirts” two days later.
But it’s not like creeps need court protection. If you’re a woman riding the subway in New York, you never know when you’ll have to deal with this kind of scum. It erodes whatever illusion of safety you’ve crafted in your mind.
Almost every woman I know has a tale of subway or street harassment and creepitude. I have a handful of stories, which is a handful too many.
For a while, at one subway stop on my daily commute, ladies could count on a “gentleman” lingering at the base of the staircase, looking up the fluttering skirts of women rushing to work and shouting out “Thanks for making my day” in a lecherous voice.
And it’s hardly a New York-only problem. Tumblr and Reddit are lousy with “creepshots” — photos taken without a woman’s knowledge (or, therefore, her consent), typically of the butt or cleavage, sometimes “humorous” but often sickly sexual.
In Massachusetts, Richardson’s lawyer used a very literal reading of the First Amendment to defend her client’s (yes, her client’s — so much for female solidarity) sleazy ways: “If a clothed person is out in public and reveals areas under their clothing, whether inadvertently or otherwise, to plain view, she or he no longer has an expectation of privacy,” said Michelle Menken.
Again, gross.
In the age of smartphones, we have to stay vigilant not only against people who may be dangerous, but also against every guy with an iPhone in his hand?
Internet sensation Sweet Brown said it best: “Ain’t nobody got time for that.”
I suppose the smartest thing for self-respecting women to do is wear loose, wide-legged trousers to work and burn their skirts and dresses. Rock a Katherine Hepburn look. Don’t even bother with opaque tights: There’s probably a fetish website for them, too.
That’s pretty much the only way you won’t risk your bum ending up on an upskirt Reddit thread or preserved in some perv’s phone gallery. Because God knows you’re never clothed enough, even in the most modest of skirts, when a “creeping Tom” is afoot.
Is it really too much to ask, to be free to use public transportation without having to worry about someone digitally documenting your body for his viewing pleasure?
Verbal harassment sucks, but it’s manageable. Physical harassment is horrible, but we’ve got the NYPD for that.
Harassment via creepshot, though, is extra low — degrading you to just a body part to be stared at. It’s violating, as it appropriates your private parts for the perv’s pleasure (worse, that violation is part of his pleasure).
And even knowing these freaks are active out there eats at you — because you probably don’t even know when you’ve been the subject of a “creepshot.”
Here in New York, we’ve got laws against upskirt shots — it falls under “unlawful surveillance,” a felony, and doesn’t require a “reasonable expectation of privacy” — so the NYPD could still bust Michael Richardson if he brought his camera here.
Last year, New York cops arrested 32 people for unlawful surveillance just within the subways, down from 41 in 2012. So we can hope aspiring degenerates think twice before snapping invasive pics.
Meanwhile, guys: If you want to do an erotic photo series on the many beautiful women of a city and the voyeuristic nature of riding the subway with them, take out a Craigslist ad and stage it with some willing participants. I’m sure plenty would do it in the name of art.
Just don’t violate the privacy that a woman plainly invokes when she goes out in public — wearing clothes.