TU Cent Thoughts, 08/23/2007

[greybeta]

Adminisration
You know what? Having a 19 hour work course load tends to cut down on your LJ posting.

Traditional Asian weddings
They're cool, but...THEY TAKE ALL DAY LONG!!! The wedding day started at 9am and didn't get done till 11:30pm.

Remedial English
So, I was catching up with an old friend and his wife from high school and I volunteered to help her with her remedial English homework. I cried inside when I saw she missed ten out of ten questions...on underlining the complete subject and circling the simple subject. Bozhe moy!

Four year olds
There was a general call for teachers in the preschool classes at my church and I volunteered. As it turns out, the preschool director was the Sunday School teacher for my three year old class way back when. She remembered me (hey, I'm Asian so I tend to stick out) and claimed me! ^_^

Verse of the Day
"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each of you esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look after not only his own interests, but also for the interests of others."
~Phillipians 2:3-4

Convo of the Day
M: You're a genius...
D2: Tell me something I don't already know.

Quote of the Day
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see."
~Arthur Schopenhauer

Link of the Day
Lawyer: Florida Man Who Took Photo Up Woman's Skirt Did Nothing Wrong (tip of the hat to kmg_365)
Sorry, lawyer dude, but you're flat out wrong...

Sports Report
Vick is done. MLB playoff races in full swing, with the Cardinals making a surprise resurgence. Men's national team dominates on first day thanks to Kobe Bryant.

Entertainment
I'm planning to see Rush Hour 3 in the near future.

Mall of America
It's huge. And by huge, I mean it has its own hotel, aquarium, miniature golf course, amusement park, and three football fields worth of stores among other things in it.

Question
Is there anything that you would consider yourself a genius at?

Comments

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

Nope. Not wrong. People look up skirts, given the opportunity. Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears can attest to that.

The principle is fairly simple - if you hide it, it's private. If it's reasonable that someone might see it, then it's public. Since an errant gust of wind could lift a skirt enough to reveal undies or the lack thereof, it's not reasonable to expect that no one will ever see under your skirt. An expectation of privacy based on the absence of wind or gusts from sewer grates is not reasonable.

As an example, let's look at trash. I would expect that no one would be digging around in my trash, but courts have held that the police can look through my trash, since anyone could.

More importantly, I question the harm here. Obviously, if the picture was taken under circumstances such that another tort occurred - threatening, touching, etc., then there's an obvious harm. If the individual's identifiable, then there might be a violation of another right - the right of publicity. (Basically, if someone takes a picture of an individual and uses it without their permission, then there's damage - public figures excepted.)

On the other hand, the picture of an unidentifiable hootch, either panty-clad or unpanty-clad, seems to me to be harmless. Heck, various magazines publish Fashion Don'ts that seem far more harmful to me.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

So, you would have no problem of some random guy taking pictures up your daughter's skirt when she grows up?

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

Well, that's the difference between a professional opinion and a personal opinion. I mean, Betsy's my little girl. In part of my brain, she'll always be the tiny thing cooing at me she is right now. Parents are biased - especially the fathers of little girls. I'm certain that I'll want to do things to the first boy (or girl) who breaks her heart, but that doesn't make dumping her legally actionable.

Skeevy behavior is a fact of life. People do things they shouldn't all the time. My point is that it isn't, and shouldn't be, actionable (again, subject to identification). In Wisconsin, this issue came up, and I believe the legislature passed a law criminalizing taking such pictures. I think this is a waste of time, but if the people of Wisconsin want it, I'm not gonna argue.

[iceofpluto.livejournal.com]

I think the difference is between the way a person sees what's under the skirt/dress. Yes an errant wind could lift the dress and I or you could be passing by and see. Not our fault, cause we didn't go trying to look under the dress. What's under the dress is private cause, well there's something between it and everyone else's eyes. If I didn't consider it private I'd go out naked. How easy it is to take off is irrelevant. It's like the difference between someone walking past my house and seeing through the blinds cause I left them open a bit, and actually walking up and trying to look through them cause well, there's a bit of space so if you tilt your head just the right way... Know what I mean?

[ink_13]

The fact of the matter is that this lawyer (like all ones worth their salt), speaks only from a legal perspective. I don't like it much (and I don't think any judge will, either; it's an extreme bending of "expectation of privacy"), but he's not commenting on if the action was morally right or wrong, only legal.

I feel like there should be some grouch here about how one can't legislate morality coupled with a nice shot at conservatives who believe otherwise, but I don't have the energy today.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, it's a case of letter of the law vs. intent of the law. Does the law specifically talk about someone taking such a picture in a public area? No, but general voyeurism laws should cover it.

It's not a matter of legislating morality but rather enforcing a social convention that allows society to operate in a safe manner. Women shouldn't have to worry about random men taking photos up their skirt.