Like your right to bodily privacy? Don't go to Oklahoma
Guest post by LindaBeth
I'd like to welcome a new guest blogger to The Reaction. A former student of mine from the Univ. of Toronto, LindaBeth is currently a graduate student at the Centre for the Study of Theory and Criticism at the University of Western Ontario. Her thesis is a discourse analysis of the normative structure marriage in the U.S., examining the rhetoric on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate and looking at how several socio-political institutions both produce and depend on normative marriage for their viability and legitimacy. And she's a blogger, too: don't ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me? offers "cultural commentary and media analysis with a shot of feminism and a twist of wit," and it is always a great read.
I encourage you to check out her insightful and provocative blog and to welcome her to our community here at The Reaction. Her first post, on an outrageous court decision in Oklahoma, is below.
**********
The Feminist Daily News (Feminist Majority Foundation) reported this story (via The F-Word):
Quick thoughts:
I'd like to welcome a new guest blogger to The Reaction. A former student of mine from the Univ. of Toronto, LindaBeth is currently a graduate student at the Centre for the Study of Theory and Criticism at the University of Western Ontario. Her thesis is a discourse analysis of the normative structure marriage in the U.S., examining the rhetoric on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate and looking at how several socio-political institutions both produce and depend on normative marriage for their viability and legitimacy. And she's a blogger, too: don't ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me? offers "cultural commentary and media analysis with a shot of feminism and a twist of wit," and it is always a great read.
I encourage you to check out her insightful and provocative blog and to welcome her to our community here at The Reaction. Her first post, on an outrageous court decision in Oklahoma, is below.
**********
The Feminist Daily News (Feminist Majority Foundation) reported this story (via The F-Word):
"Oklahoma Man Not Charged for Violating Privacy of 16 Year Old Girl"
Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that taking pictures up someone's skirt in a public place is not a crime. The court voted 4-1 in favor of 34-year-old Riccardo Ferrante who was arrested for putting his camera up an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl’s skirt in a department store, reports the Associated Press... Ferrante was charged under Oklahoma's "Peeping Tom" statute, which makes such offenses felonies punishable of up to 5 years in prison. Tulsa World reports that the court ruled that the statute only applies in situations where the victims are in a reasonably private place such as their own homes, a restroom, or a locker room.
Quick thoughts:
- Clearly, sexual privacy doesn't seem to apply to when women are in public.
- What can of worms does this open up? Spycams in changing rooms? Can someone pull down your shirt as you're waiting for the bus? The implications of this ruling are absurd!
- She's 16-years old... WTF?!
- And this is all because she dared to wear a skirt in public that was short enough that a camera could be placed under that. Hear that ladies? If you're gonna leave the house, you'd better be wearing full-body armor! Enter the public sphere, and your sexual privacy belongs to everyone. But stay at home (ya know, where women belong), and you're fully protected.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
4:27 PM
2 Comments:
This is appalling. Just because you're out in the public sphere doesn't mean you give up expectations of privacy especially bodily integrity. Hopefully the OK legislature will do something about this.
But I have to point out some flaws in your examples. Pulling down a person's shirt would be battery and a changing room would seem like a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy under this ruling. On the other hand, a court that would do this might look the other way in such situations as well.
Anyway, good first post!
By
Unknown, at 7:26 PM
Thanks for your comment! And you're right about the changing room example, although I thought perhaps an argument could be made that a changing room has less expectation of privacy than, say, a bathroom.
One thing to ponder- cel phone use is banned from many gym locker rooms yet there is not expectation of privacy there, unless you go into a bathroom stall. I wonder if such a rule would be considered illegal in OK in light of the ruling?
Interesting too that the shirt example would be considered "battery." It makes it clear to me that permissible, if not appropriate, behavior, seems to be defined by physical contact. And I find that disturbing.
By
lindabeth, at 3:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home