Tribute to Vallone's Proposed Anti-Voyeurism Bill

aboutmattlaw took this great photograph at the Ditmars Boulevard subway station stairs. It's a nod to Queens City Councilman Peter Vallone's proposed legislation to ban "non-sensual" peeping, with punishments like 90 days in jail and a $500 fine for first offense. Vallone said that his bill was prompted by some women's complaints that a "rather large pervert" was lurking under the Ditmars station's subway steps. Per the Queens Gazette, Vallone emphasizes, "These perverts use their eyes to invade the privacy of people's bodies, leaving many feeling violated. Yet, up until now, there has been a peephole loophole that gives anyone a license to gawk, leer and spy anywhere they please."

The NYCLU is against the bill, and executive director Donna Lieberman said it's written too looely, "This lack of clarity confers a license for abuse on those empowered to enforce the law by leaving it up to the individual police officer to decide which kinds of viewing are lawful and which kinds are degrading and hence unlawful." But some female Queens residents told the Queens Chronicle even though they're skeptical of the bill's effectiveness, they do like the idea of anything that can stop unwanted stares (though one woman did say, "Fortunately, I don’t wear skirts.”).

Earlier this week, the NY Times had an editorial about the bill:

The councilman says he has crafted this legislation narrowly, but if voyeurism ever really becomes illegal, it’s time to build more jails in New York City.

For better or sometimes worse, New York is a city of exhibitionists. One of the many reasons people come to New York is to show off...

New York is also a city full of spectators. There are probably many more New Yorkers who own binoculars than there are New Yorkers who love birds or opera. And why are the sales of telescopes over the moon in a place where, on most nights, it’s impossible to make out the big dipper? And, the newest, fanciest most expensive apartment buildings are made of the newest, fanciest and most expensive glass.

So true: If this law passes, we wonder if a law requiring certain kinds of blinds and curtains will go into effect.

Photograph by aboutmattlaw on Flickr

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on September 2, 2007 3:05 PM

Comments [rss]

Leon Freilich

STAREWAY TO HEAVEN

Peeping Tom, you're a helluva perv

And belong in the old-times file;

For an eyeful of skin, you don't need nerve--

Just look across the aisle.

guest

Now that makes me want to peep more and post it on the internet.

molon labe.

guest

In the past (Say fifty years ago) Peeping, & things on that nature were frowned upon & people realized it & showed respect for there fellow neighbor's ! With today's technology, & More people with no lives of there own . Things like invading someones privacy have come to the fore-front ! Just remember folks, If you catch a "Peeper" looking through Ur windows you have the right to defend Ur home ! Believe it OR not, You can actually shoot the "Peeper" and have the Judge toss the case based on that ! I kid you not, It's true . The hard part is actually catching the fucking Pervs ! Posted by; "Still Not Amused"

guest

you're damned if you look and damned if you don't.

you can't win. here's a tip, wear underwear.

dadoc

And if the women are so incensed about the Fat Ditmas SUV guy, how about a good digital pic of this Ahole (NOT cell, they're so low-qual) to post & solve at least part of the problem?

As stated in an earlier thread, the "law" as worded is contradictory, not provable and (to me)

appears to be just a poor effort for media attention by an inadequate politically-impotent pseudo-politico.

Dadoc

dadoc

Cheaper & much easier than trying to introduce & enforce this badly constructed "law":

Put some of that orange construction net along the sides of the stairwells with some Tel ties.

You can protect the whole of the "el" lines for a few hundred bucks.

Sorry, Fat Ditmas SUV guy.

Dadoc

aboutmattlaw

SP is right. It's non-consensual.

guest

haha Non-sensual peeping! Another one bites the dust..!

SP

banning "non-sensual" peeping? Jen, are you really really sure about this? Methinks you meany non-CONSENSUAL. BIG difference. If we banned "non-sensual" peeping, it would mean that anytime anyone looked at someone else, it would have to be in a "sensual" manner. I for one would welcome this law.

guest

Does this mean I can no longer ogle at a well-endowed woman on the subway? That's part of the fun in riding the subway! : (

S.D.

...

Toby, Evil in so many ways...

;)

NinjaDevotchka

So. We live in country where warrantless wire-tapping is OK, but staring at people is not? This is why the rest of the world thinks we are stupid.

Toby von Meistersinger

I guess this goes against the if you see something say something policy.

guest

when you live in a city where people are literally on top of each other, you can't help but peep.

so if I live in a high rise and see a nude sunbather on a lower floor terrence, is that peeping?

Is it peeping if I live on a narrow street like Ludlow and see a neighbor across the street nude in her kitchen?

like I said before, peeping stories make for good bar talk.

guest

hah, wrong article.

guest

my block in brooklyn had a party a few weeks ago and i was annoyed to see an open fire hydrant for the duration - at least 8 hours. it wasn't even a hot day! such a gross waste of water.