April 17, 2009

And you, Rubic, are not very bright - you must look at all state statutes....

Rubic Says:

April 16th, 2009 at 11:25 am
According to http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/voyeurism/ his actions do not necessarily constitute voyeurism for one key reason: He was recording himself. Now, if it was provable that, despite filming himself and this woman for private use, that he also planned to sell and distribute the video, then it would be chargeable as voyeurism.

long story short: He's not legally a voyeur since it cannot be proven that he wasn't recording to see himself in the act. That would, instead, be narcissism, which isn't illegal as far as I know.

Now how do you explain to all those MEN out there who have taken to running around with a digital camera or camcorder in order to catch women unawares and take either still pictures or video up the skirt shots? And most all of these MEN claim that these pictures/videos were for their own personal enjoyment....I am tired of posting the video so why don't you RUBIC, shut YOUR piehole?

No comments: