Ladies: If You Are Going Out in Public In Oklahoma, Better Wear Pants Or Maybe Even A Burqua
Wow, think I’ll stay out of Oklahoma for the time being…
“A man accused of using a camera to take pictures under the skirt of an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl at a Tulsa store did not commit a crime, a state appeals court has ruled.
The state Court of Criminal Appeals voted 4-1 in favor of Riccardo Gino Ferrante, who was arrested in 2006 for situating a camera underneath the girl’s skirt at a Target store and taking photographs.
Ferrante, now 34, was charged under a “Peeping Tom” statute that requires the victim to be “in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt.”
“In January 2007, Tulsa County District Judge Tom Gillert ordered Ferrante’s felony charge dismissed. That was based upon a determination that “the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy,” according to the appellate ruling issued last week.”
In a dissenting opinion, Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote,
“In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman’s dress.”
And according to defense attorney Kevin Adams,
“I think it is a scenario where the law has not caught up with technology.”
Oh what is wrong with this, let me count the ways…First of all, where exactly was this perv that he could get photos under the victim’s skirt–presumably somewhere down on the floor? Seems to me that you do indeed have a reasonable expectation of not finding someone in that location taking pictures up your ass while you are shopping. But lets not diminish the crime by calling this guy a peeping Tom, sounds much to neighborly for a deviant violator of human rights. And that is the precisely the point. This isn’t a case of the law not catching up with technology, this is a case of not catching up with common sense, basic decency and women’s human rights.
Filed under: Uncategorized, Misogyny, Gender-Based Violence
Ferrante is in fact a male sexual voyeur - not a peeping tom. I wonder does this mean then that if a camera is located in a Men’s bathroom it will not infringe the rights of males using this facility who will obviously at some stage have their genitalia exposed. Why should men expect any privacy in a men’s bathroom when other males will be present.
I always thought women had a right to use public spaces and have their bodily integrity respected but obviously I am mistaken. What next? Will males be given the right to commit sexual assault against females in public spaces because women should not be accorded the right of privacy and bodily integrity within a public sphere.
It is a slippery slope once one claims ‘women do not have the right of ‘reasonable expectation of privacy.’ Fortunately in the UK we do have a sexual offences act which covers crimes such as male voyeurism and males filming women and girls ‘up their skirts.’ Only problem is it is perceived as ‘male humour and harmless fun’!! Not the reality of male sexual harassment and male sexual violence against women.