August 22, 2007
Vallone Wants to Stop Peeping Toms (and Tonyas)
L.B. Jeffries would be screwed! City Council member Peter Vallone Jr. is proposing legislation to ban "non-consensual peeping with cameras to peeping with the naked eye" according to the NY Sun. The crime would be a misdemeanor, with a $500 fine and up to 90 days in jail. CityRoom has some of the legislation:
b. Voyeurism in a private place. It shall be unlawful to deliberately view another person, without that person’s knowledge and consent, at a place and time when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, while such person is (1) in a state of undress or partial dress, (2) engaged in sexual intercourse or sexual contact, or (3) urinating or defecating.Re: part b, how about blinds and curtains? Or maybe those get in the way of passion. Vallone's spokesman said that people being peeped upon could call the police about being watched, "The most problematic case is going to be people staring into windows. It's like anything else. It won't be any harder to describe than an assault."c. Voyeurism in a public place. It shall be unlawful for any person to deliberately and repeatedly position him or herself in a public place to deliberatively view another person’s sexual or other intimate parts, while such person is in a public place and without such person’s knowledge or consent, when such parts are not otherwise visible to the public.
Vallone told CityRoom, "I started to get complaints from females who were upset that a rather large pervert was standing under the steps every morning, holding his cup of coffee, staring up at their skirts. The police told me there was no law against what he was doing. So I wrote one.” We don't know that pervert, but we did see some asshole following women up subway stairs and ducking his head to peer under their skirts.
The NYCLU's Donna Lieberman said, "New Yorkers look into each other's apartments all the time -- we're living right on top of each other." Totally! Remember when the naked lady drove Jerry Seinfeld crazy during The Contest?
And L.B. Jeffries is the character James Stewart played in Rear Window (and the apartments he spies on are at 125 West 9th Street in the Village - a fake address). Also, screw Disturbia!
|
Can I get law to shut up my loud neighbors and the people that keep blowing marijuana smoke into the air vents?
Why go through all the trouble of peeping or harassing. There's enough Internet porn to keep a perv busy all day.
jen, i don't think you would find this so ridiculous if you were to find a picture of yourself on this NSFW website.
also, don't hate on disturbia. ;)
will this law apply to law enforcement peeping on their down time or when they're bored?
I'm waiting for marygrace to chime in.
Peeping is part of being a NY'er.
People do it when bored at their desk, bored at a class or just bored. it also makes for interesting bar talk.
I think the answer is Skorts.
On different thread today we have learned that if the cops misuse security cameras for their own jollies it is a gross violation of your constitutional rights but your neighbors should be allowed to peer in on you. Ok.
NYC politicians are useless. They always start legislation on items to get camera/media time.
DO SOME REAL WORK.
What Vallone actually said was:
"I started thinking how could I get more face time on TV since it would be good if I want to run for mayor and was upset at how much John Liu was getting, showing up on TV a lot. My political advisers told me I should find something sexier than graffiti to write a law about and didn't have one. So I wrote one."
You know, it's amazing I've never seen postings of authentic voyeur photographs taken by New Yorkers through apartment windows. Instead all the voyeur photos seem to be fakes or security cameras. Has anybody else seen such photos? There ought to be a thousand opportunities a day for such photos, yet I've never come across them. Weird.
Seems to me that this runs totally counter to the huge push for surveillance cameras on every corner.
okay, there was a guy in seattle who used to walk around with a video camera and stick it up women's skirts. when women complained to the cops, they arrested him, and the case got thrown out because he was "filming in a public place".
so be glad there's a law.
The proposed law, as quoted is poorly worded, legally vague, contradictory and basically useless.
Section A: If you're gettin' some in your car or van or in the Ramble @ night, or peeing in someone's Chelsea doorway @ 4AM drunk & E'd out and the dogwalker passes by, are they guilty? What is a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. What about the blond woman with the great body who, while naked, used to work out on her stairmaster in the Rutherford penthouse with 20 foot windows and great lighting. Do I have to shut my shades? If you're out there, thank you and I miss ya! I do not miss ugly fat chick with the basset hound who spent 24h/day in front of her window on E 19th.
Section B: "Repeatedly" needs to be witnessed by the same indiv > once. "Deliberately" implies intent. Try to prove
the combo. What if you wait at the same bus stop every morning under the N/W at the same time, and occasionally look up? From where you stand, in your normal daily actions, a person ascending the stairs has their "parts" publicly viewable.
Once again (aside from the bad hairpeice--
Real men don't wear Fur!), just pandering media-whoring by a congenital dink who works for a powerless outdated body.
Dadoc
Ridiculous! As I had mentioned in another article from yesterday, I can still give a woman facing me in the subway the thorough look-over from head to toe..!?
This sounds like an anti-paparazzi law.
The City Council is useless. Now they are going to ban voyeurism. Then they will ban all the other fetishes. What are all you weirdos from the Mid-West going to do in NYC now?
Without sticking your head up someone's skirt or doing the drooling "Hey Baby/Momma trog thing, It is impolite to stare & make it obvious.
However, I have on rare occasions, at a light, when someone is particularly outstanding, stated nicely
"Hey, great hair/eyes/look/face/outfit, you've brightened up my morning, now you enjoy yours." And then gone about my day. Response (No, I'm not trying to pick someone up, just I really love distinctive beauty and would never mention anything I would consider improper.) Responses have routinely been a beautiful smile and a "Thanks". I think it's Okay to make a SINGLE, non-threatening comment of appreciation of someone's qualities and efforts. I tend to do the same thing about cute babies, nice cars and cool dogs. I've even commented on guys' suits on occasion. Be polite, it's okay to offer a SINGLE compliment, smile and go on your way.
Dadoc
Yeah, I know I didn't totally proof the above. Had a few Buds while getting the kids ready for bed (Don't drink PBR, have a real job, SNARK).
I don't even have a great "rack" (really classy, guys) to make up for my typos (Snark-Snark).
Everbody enjoy and be well
Dadoc
OH PLEASE. Better than upskirt.com is upyerkilt.com.
MY BAD, sorry it's http://www.upyerkilt.net/
Wait, peeping isn't illegal NOW? I just kind of assumed it must be.
So if I intentionally turn my shoulder and inch or two on the subway so I can peek down some chick's low-cut blouse I'm guilty of a crime????
Lock me up then! Because I'm not stopping.
I don't even have a great "rack" (really classy, guys) to make up for my typos (Snark-Snark).
As you see, most male Gothamist readers don't get out too often - it's understandable for them to get a little excited...
I lived on 79th between 1st Ave and York I was constantly assaulted by a woman who lived in the opposite building-- and walked around NUDE, all the time.
She had to know that I could see her, as well as anyone in my 6 story building that had windows that faced hers. But I guess she was too poor to afford blinds or curtains-- or maybe she just didn't care.
Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad had she been pretty or in shape. But she was ugly and needed a gym membership badly. So I was forced to buy blinds and I stayed away from the windows as much as possible.
How about a law that protects victims like me, who are practically FORCED to be voyeurs?
I ride the L train and for the past 5 yrs I can always tell when summer has officially hit because the subway perverts come out. There is a stairwell to go up to the N,R,Q platform where the perverts stand to stare/film up girls skirts. Most people are so rushed they do not even notice. This summer I took to yelling "pervert" when I walked by, calling the cops and/or telling a station attendant. This has been a daily occurrence. Looks like all those phone calls are finally paying off!
#24- LOL. I had the same problem long ago, only it was both a guy and a lady at the same time just walking around nude. It was a repressed memory until now.
I used to see the guy that Vallone mentions in Astoria every morning a couple of summers ago. He would race up to the same parking spot in a big SUV and park himself below the stairs. He had a sunroof and it would be open and he would sit there with his coffee and stare up. I can't imagine that there wasn't a better use of his time...
OF COURSE it's not illegal to LOOK at a person in a public place. Give it a break; you can tell the difference between looking at another person and leering rudely, or standing in a place where they can see or take pictures up skirts. Don't be That Guy.
Question: The subway pulls up and I have the choice of two seats. One is opposite a fat guy in a suit. The other is opposite a cute girl in a miniskirt who just happens to have her legs uncrossed and her knees a little too far apart.
If I choose the seat opposite the girl, and am able to see her panties without straining either my neck or my eyes, am I guilty under Vallone's stupid new bill?
Well, you might if there's any evidence of drooling...hehe
Potential law seems incomplete. Saw two women news people saying 'finally someone is doing something about men trying to look up my skirt'. Both women were sitting in mini-skirts before 20M viewers and had low-cut tops on, etc. Impending law should including components to prohibit exhibitionists or women in general from showing any cleavage, prohibit skirts above the knees, no tops with collars that are too open, get rid of high heels, perfume has got to go, and whatever else women use to gain the interest of men. I believe what NYC seems to be saying is that when NYC women start wearing full cover clothes, like the Muslim women in Iran, a man looking up a woman's skirt/dress or down her top, should be punished.