That is not the defense's argument. Not surprisingly, the author is being intentionally misleading and selective in her "reportage" because jezebel.

You do realize that the author is "paraphrasing" something that the attorney never actually said, right? As in, she is being intentionally misleading..? Anyone going out in public is potentially subject to having their photo taken.

Why is it mind-numbingly stupid?

It has to do with the fact that he wasn't breaking any laws.

Nor is the argument for throwing the charges out "because FREE SPEECH." This story is so completely (intentionally) misleading - but I guess I shouldn't be surprised given that this is jezebel..

I really hope you have never, ever, ever broken any law in your life whatsoever. And even if you haven't - still a moronic thing to say.

Nope. This guy wasn't breaking the law or threatening anyone with physical harm.

Exactly the same, if they were doing it the same way this guy was (i.e. not breaking the law).

Contrary to what the moron who wrote the story said, he was not breaking any laws - so the defense is pretty simple, actually (the defense is not "FREE SPEECH").

He wasn't doing "acrobatics", he was standing on the train. If you are wearing a skirt and sitting on a train, the view up your skirt may very well be in plain sight.

Funny how jezebel stories always leave a reader with more questions than answers, huh? But that's what you get with intentionally misleading headlines and selective "reportage"...

More of a clarification point by the defense regarding the definition of "partially nude".

B - no, it was while he was standing on a train.

Alright, I may have misread that a bit - I read it as you assuming, like so many of the other commenters here, that he was going way out of his way to cram his camera up women's skirts when the facts actually seem to indicate he was taking candid shots of women whose underwear happened to be in view (like if they were…

Since he was standing and holding his phone at waist level, it's more likely that he was photographing women who's underwear happened to be visible, i.e. in "plain view" (unless, of course, he is extremely short, the victims were extremelay tall, and they were wearing extremely short skirts): http://www.eagletribune.co…

He wasn't putting his camera up anyone's skirt. Just because jezebel can't be bothered to do any actual fucking research (or write a non-misleading headline) doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't look for facts (because you won't find them here) before making statements based on assumptions: http://www.eagletribune.com…

He wasn't laying his head on the subway floor. Just because jezebel can't be bothered to do any actual fucking research (or write a non-misleading headline) doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't look for facts (because you won't find them here) before making statements based on assumptions: http://www.eagletribune.com/…

He wasn't laying down on the subway floor. Just because jezebel can't be bothered to do any actual fucking research (or write a non-misleading headline) doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't look for facts (because you won't find them here) before making statements based on assumptions: http://www.eagletribune.com/late…

:^)

He is NOT suing for his "right" to take upskirt photos - he is the defendant in a case in which charges are being brought against him. There's a big difference.