If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules women should wear underwear in public   (boston.com) divider line 82
    More: PSA, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, DeLeo, regulations, reasonable expectation of privacy, vows, Green Line  
•       •       •

6916 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 4:34 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-05 03:01:37 PM  
"Why are there so goddamn many Japanese tourists in Boston this year, and why are they all men?"
 
2014-03-05 03:26:28 PM  
Some women don't wear panties specifically for this purpose. It's like riding the highway to the dangerzone.
 
2014-03-05 03:38:25 PM  
If it doesn't include your face what's the big deal if somebody gets a picture of your hoo-ha? Oh right, you want dinner and a movie first. Prostitute.
 
2014-03-05 03:41:24 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Some women don't wear panties specifically for this purpose. It's like riding the highway to the dangerzone.


That's how you get ants.
 
2014-03-05 03:44:39 PM  
The idea of wearing a skirt on the T with no underpants makes my vagina cringe.
 
2014-03-05 03:54:29 PM  

what_now: The idea of wearing a skirt on the T with no underpants makes my vagina cringe.


So a man takes his wife golfing for the first time, with another couple. As she is standing on the T addressing the ball, she gets stung by a bee. Her husband runs back to ask the starter what to do.
"Where was she stung?" the starter asks.
"Between the first and second hole."

"Tell her her stance is too wide."

/love that oldie but goodie
 
2014-03-05 03:58:52 PM  
i.imgur.com

GIS for "cringing vagina"
 
2014-03-05 04:02:22 PM  
It's unclear under what standard this would be illegal unless there was a statute specifically on point. Taking pictures of non-nude people in public settings might be sometimes creepy, but illegal?
 
2014-03-05 04:14:29 PM  
That article was severely lacking in pictures of what women wearing underwear might look like.
 
2014-03-05 04:39:17 PM  
And nothing else right?
 
2014-03-05 04:41:39 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: That article was severely lacking in pictures of what women wearing underwear might look like.


So is this thread.
 
2014-03-05 04:42:44 PM  
It's been five months since any woman in this city could go outside in fewer than 4 layers of coats anyway

:(
 
2014-03-05 04:42:48 PM  
House Speaker Robert DeLeo said this afternoon that the Legislature would immediately begin looking at ways of closing the loophole in the law.

Tee hee.
 
2014-03-05 04:43:06 PM  

bearded clamorer: [i.imgur.com image 419x245]

GIS for "cringing vagina"


You should photoshop a green slime trail in there
 
2014-03-05 04:43:52 PM  

bearded clamorer: [i.imgur.com image 419x245]

GIS for "cringing vagina"


And see what would happen if they WEREN'T wearing legally mandated underwear?
 
2014-03-05 04:45:06 PM  
I'd recommend not riding the T for the next few days if possible.  I wouldn't expect an uptick of pervs as much as I'd expect an uptick of obnoxious jerks.
/and you thought it wasn't possible
 
2014-03-05 04:45:32 PM  

CarnySaur: House Speaker Robert DeLeo said this afternoon that the Legislature would immediately begin looking at ways of closing the loophole in the law.

Tee hee.


I wonder if someone will sue them for violating their first amendment rights?
 
2014-03-05 04:47:22 PM  

Mikey1969: bearded clamorer: [i.imgur.com image 419x245]

GIS for "cringing vagina"

And see what would happen if they WEREN'T wearing legally mandated underwear?


It'd be a slippery slope, that's what.

// OH SHIAT, I didn't realize they were Asian
// not intended to be a statement of racism
// "the inclined plane would not offer much resistance due to friction, and to employ a double entendre, could lead to underwearless races of all types! Maybe even gay people might want to participate!"
 
2014-03-05 04:51:11 PM  

bearded clamorer: GIS for "cringing vagina"


I hopes that GIF catches on here. Makey me laugh.
 
2014-03-05 04:51:38 PM  
We need to hear from more women in this thread - women like what_now with all the hoo-ha talk.

Please proceed...
 
2014-03-05 04:52:16 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Mikey1969: bearded clamorer: [i.imgur.com image 419x245]

GIS for "cringing vagina"

And see what would happen if they WEREN'T wearing legally mandated underwear?

It'd be a slippery slope, that's what.

// OH SHIAT, I didn't realize they were Asian
// not intended to be a statement of racism
// "the inclined plane would not offer much resistance due to friction, and to employ a double entendre, could lead to underwearless races of all types! Maybe even gay people might want to participate!"


Hell, I was thinking more along the 'suction cup' line...
 
2014-03-05 04:53:11 PM  
Dnrtfa.

Lemme guess which party affiliation decided this.
 
2014-03-05 04:53:27 PM  
If you don't want parts of your body to be seen, then you should cover those parts with something to keep photons from bouncing directly off of the area. No way should any photography in a public area be illegal. This country is farking ridiculous. I'm tired of the prudes and the think-of-the-chilluns dipshiats running the show. Toughen the fark up, all of you.
 
2014-03-05 04:55:53 PM  

what_now: The idea of wearing a skirt on the T with no underpants makes my vagina cringe.


Cringing vaginas is my new lounge band name.
Yeah, I play the wrinkle room
 
2014-03-05 04:58:32 PM  

DamnYankees: It's unclear under what standard this would be illegal unless there was a statute specifically on point. Taking pictures of non-nude people in public settings might be sometimes creepy, but illegal?


Yup. General rule is that it's entirely legal to take photos of anyone and anything in public. Unless there's a narrowly tailored law to the contrary, you get to take photos of anyone or anything from any angle. The 1st Amendment would make it quite difficult to make any rule to the contrary.

Creepy as fark? Yes. Prohibited by law? Not unless there's a statute limiting that particular behavior, and there doesn't appear to be. Massachusetts should probably get right on that.
 
2014-03-05 04:59:45 PM  

Gentoolive: Dnrtfa.

Lemme guess which party affiliation decided this.


This isn't a party thing. This is a pretty clear case of statutory interpretation. You're not "partially nude" if you're fully clothed.
 
2014-03-05 05:00:05 PM  
To celebrate his victory the defendant purchased himself a Google Glass.
 
2014-03-05 05:03:04 PM  
image.dhgate.com
Here's a picture of my mom.
 
2014-03-05 05:04:31 PM  
... and here are my sisters.
geniusbeauty.com
 
2014-03-05 05:05:54 PM  
s8.postimg.org
 
2014-03-05 05:05:55 PM  
Burnings too good for him!
 
2014-03-05 05:06:36 PM  
Upskirtesrus.com.?????
 
2014-03-05 05:10:25 PM  

cptjeff: DamnYankees: It's unclear under what standard this would be illegal unless there was a statute specifically on point. Taking pictures of non-nude people in public settings might be sometimes creepy, but illegal?

Yup. General rule is that it's entirely legal to take photos of anyone and anything in public. Unless there's a narrowly tailored law to the contrary, you get to take photos of anyone or anything from any angle. The 1st Amendment would make it quite difficult to make any rule to the contrary.

Creepy as fark? Yes. Prohibited by law? Not unless there's a statute limiting that particular behavior, and there doesn't appear to be. Massachusetts should probably get right on that.


Actually, they didn't touch the 1st Amendment issues. This was just about statutory interpretation - current statute requires the victim to be partially nude, and wearing a skirt isn't.
 
2014-03-05 05:13:07 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Some women don't wear panties specifically for this purpose. It's like riding the highway to the dangerzone.


How are you supposed to drown a toddler in your panties if you're not wearing any?
 
2014-03-05 05:16:42 PM  

what_now: The idea of wearing a skirt on the T with no underpants makes my vagina cringe.


Really?  Could I get a snapshot of that?

/since it's on-topic and all
 
2014-03-05 05:17:46 PM  

Theaetetus: cptjeff: DamnYankees: It's unclear under what standard this would be illegal unless there was a statute specifically on point. Taking pictures of non-nude people in public settings might be sometimes creepy, but illegal?

Yup. General rule is that it's entirely legal to take photos of anyone and anything in public. Unless there's a narrowly tailored law to the contrary, you get to take photos of anyone or anything from any angle. The 1st Amendment would make it quite difficult to make any rule to the contrary.

Creepy as fark? Yes. Prohibited by law? Not unless there's a statute limiting that particular behavior, and there doesn't appear to be. Massachusetts should probably get right on that.

Actually, they didn't touch the 1st Amendment issues. This was just about statutory interpretation - current statute requires the victim to be partially nude, and wearing a skirt isn't.


I know that this ruling doesn't touch 1st Amendment issues. I was explaining the general rule for public photography, which exists in its current form in large part due to the 1st Amendment, for those who may not be familiar with it (including the poster I responded to), in order to bring some wider context into the discussion.
 
2014-03-05 05:17:56 PM  
So remember young  ladies , to avoid embarrassment ,   shave that hairy muskrat everyday , cause those legal high resolution cameras will put you on YouTube!
 
2014-03-05 05:20:13 PM  
img.fark.net
Hi guys!  What's goin' on in this thread?
 
2014-03-05 05:20:40 PM  

cptjeff: Theaetetus: cptjeff: DamnYankees: It's unclear under what standard this would be illegal unless there was a statute specifically on point. Taking pictures of non-nude people in public settings might be sometimes creepy, but illegal?

Yup. General rule is that it's entirely legal to take photos of anyone and anything in public. Unless there's a narrowly tailored law to the contrary, you get to take photos of anyone or anything from any angle. The 1st Amendment would make it quite difficult to make any rule to the contrary.

Creepy as fark? Yes. Prohibited by law? Not unless there's a statute limiting that particular behavior, and there doesn't appear to be. Massachusetts should probably get right on that.

Actually, they didn't touch the 1st Amendment issues. This was just about statutory interpretation - current statute requires the victim to be partially nude, and wearing a skirt isn't.

I know that this ruling doesn't touch 1st Amendment issues. I was explaining the general rule for public photography, which exists in its current form in large part due to the 1st Amendment, for those who may not be familiar with it (including the poster I responded to), in order to bring some wider context into the discussion.


Yeah. It'll be interesting when the Commonwealth responds with a new statute directly targeting upskirt photography.

They'll also probably fix the public place exception, too.
 
2014-03-05 05:22:48 PM  
Legal or not, it won't keep some slob that gets caught from having the shiat kicked out of him falling down a few times.

/eight year olds, dude
 
2014-03-05 05:26:29 PM  

what_now: The idea of wearing a skirt on the T with no underpants makes my vagina cringe.


Ditto.

The cool breezes cannot possibly be worth the fear of what you'd catch.
 
2014-03-05 05:31:19 PM  

mrinfoguy: [image.dhgate.com image 800x1200]
Here's a picture of my mom.


I want to fark your mom. And your sisters.

What'll you take in trade?
 
2014-03-05 05:36:54 PM  

Theaetetus: Yeah. It'll be interesting when the Commonwealth responds with a new statute directly targeting upskirt photography.


I suspect that will be along the lines of next week. I guess the committee process might take a little bit of time, but I'm sure they'll have this addressed very soon.
 
2014-03-05 05:40:22 PM  

Gentoolive: Dnrtfa.

Lemme guess which party affiliation decided this.


Dude, it's Massachusetts.  We don't HAVE Republicans here.

Not since we foisted Romney off on the rest of you, anyway...

Seriously, I voted in one election in Cambridge where the Republican polled the same as the actual, honest-to-god Communist candidate...

/those Russian spies they unmasked in Cambridge a couple years back?
//they stood out because they were too right-wing
 
2014-03-05 05:42:34 PM  

cptjeff: DamnYankees: It's unclear under what standard this would be illegal unless there was a statute specifically on point. Taking pictures of non-nude people in public settings might be sometimes creepy, but illegal?

Yup. General rule is that it's entirely legal to take photos of anyone and anything in public. Unless there's a narrowly tailored law to the contrary, you get to take photos of anyone or anything from any angle. The 1st Amendment would make it quite difficult to make any rule to the contrary.

Creepy as fark? Yes. Prohibited by law? Not unless there's a statute limiting that particular behavior, and there doesn't appear to be. Massachusetts should probably get right on that.


Fun little Constitutional point of order:  The Mass. Constitution pre-dates the Federal Constitution, so our SJC can, and has, construe it differently than the Supremes construe the Federal one, even where the language is identical.
 
2014-03-05 05:43:18 PM  
Prosecutors argued that a person has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothes.

And the judge agreed with the prosecutors.
 
2014-03-05 05:44:53 PM  
The Mass. Senate President's statements regarding this decision are hilarious:

"We have fought too hard and too long for women's rights to take the step backward," Murray said in a statement. "I am in disbelief that the courts would come to this kind of decision and outraged at what it means for women's privacy and public safety."

i.e., "I am ashamed that we, the elected legislature failed in our duty and left this practice legal, and am angry at the Supreme Judicial Court for not violating due process by ginning up a criminal statute to cover our mistake."
 
2014-03-05 05:46:14 PM  

PunGent: Fun little Constitutional point of order: The Mass. Constitution pre-dates the Federal Constitution, so our SJC can, and has, construe it differently than the Supremes construe the Federal one, even where the language is identical.


Any state supreme court can do this when interpreting the state constitution regardless of the age of the documents.  the SJC just gets to be snooty about interpreting an older constitution.
 
2014-03-05 05:47:51 PM  
But don't you dare video a Massachusetts State Trooper beating a an innocent bystander
 
2014-03-05 05:48:10 PM  

mrinfoguy: [image.dhgate.com image 800x1200]
Here's a picture of my mom.


Funny, she didn't look like that last night.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report