Today is a glorious day for a one Christopher Hunt Cleveland, an all-American hero who just wanted to take upskirt photos of women at a national monument without having a bunch of no-fun freedom-haters stand in his way. Though he was arrested in June 2013 and charged with two counts of attempted voyeurism when U.S. Park Police spotted him at the Lincoln Memorial surreptitiously taking pictures of the “private parts” of women seated on the memorial steps, he has been found guilty of, well, nothing.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet J. McKenna ruled that the women “did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a public place and that they had positioned themselves in ways that made there intimate areas visible to any other passerby,” as The Washington Post reported. Her ruling states that “There is no evidence Mr. Cleveland positioned his camera in any way or employed photographic techniques or illumination, so as to capture images that were not already on public display.” This, even though officers who detained Cleveland found hundreds of “comparable shots from other outings” on a computer stored in Cleveland’s car.

Less than a month ago, a Texas Court issued much the same ruling, striking down a law that would ban upskirt photos on the grounds that it “would be a violation of federal free-speech rights and a ‘paternalistic’ effort to regulate the photographers’ thoughts.”

I sense sarcasm.

Otherwise, doesn't the ruling make sense?

If the ladies display it, why would be illegal to take pictures of it?

Does it seem like a victory for common sense, perrhaps?

Wouldn't common sense dictate if it is so dang priate or personal, and you don't want people looking at it or taking pictures of it, don't leave it hanging out?

Hoooray I can stare rape with a camera.
Attachments:

Sounds legit to me. I don't want anybody taking pictures up my skirt, so I don't sit in a way that allows people to see my vagina. If these barn raised skanks have a problem with how they look in public that's their issue to fix.