ManhattanKnight
August 23rd, 2007, 11:24 AM
August 23, 2007
Just Looking Could Be Costly Under Proposed Voyeurism Law
By RAY RIVERA
When women in his Queens district started complaining of a strange man standing under the steps of the elevated subway at Ditmars Boulevard, looking up their skirts, City Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr. said he was as surprised as anyone to learn there was no law against it.
So he wrote one.
Mr. Vallone, chairman of the Council’s Public Safety Committee, introduced legislation yesterday to make nonconsensual voyeurism a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. Peeping is now illegal only if the subject is recorded on camera without his or her knowledge, or if it involves some other crime like trespassing or stalking, Mr. Vallone said.
So, while unseemly, it is perfectly legal for someone to stand under a public stairwell and gawk, or for a boss to spy on his or her employees through a hole in a bathroom or changing room, Mr. Vallone said.
“I’ve been receiving calls from all over the country from people just amazed that this is not against the law,” Mr. Vallone said, after news of his bill went out over news wires and the Internet yesterday.
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts” for more than a brief period, “in other than a casual or cursory manner,” for the purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed.
The New York Civil Liberties Union issued a statement yesterday calling the proposal “creepy lawmaking.”
“The problem with this legislation is that it’s trying to get at this amorphous, vague behavior of looking, which is very imprecise,” said Donna Lieberman, the group’s executive director. “The language of the bill reflects how vague the activity that they’re trying to get at is, and the problem is that it’s an invitation to abuse, to selective enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police officer.”
She added, “What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore unlawful, who’s to say?”
Mr. Vallone responded that his bill was very narrowly drawn.
“We took great pains to make sure that the normal admiration of God’s creation was not made illegal,” Mr. Vallone said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Just Looking Could Be Costly Under Proposed Voyeurism Law
By RAY RIVERA
When women in his Queens district started complaining of a strange man standing under the steps of the elevated subway at Ditmars Boulevard, looking up their skirts, City Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr. said he was as surprised as anyone to learn there was no law against it.
So he wrote one.
Mr. Vallone, chairman of the Council’s Public Safety Committee, introduced legislation yesterday to make nonconsensual voyeurism a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. Peeping is now illegal only if the subject is recorded on camera without his or her knowledge, or if it involves some other crime like trespassing or stalking, Mr. Vallone said.
So, while unseemly, it is perfectly legal for someone to stand under a public stairwell and gawk, or for a boss to spy on his or her employees through a hole in a bathroom or changing room, Mr. Vallone said.
“I’ve been receiving calls from all over the country from people just amazed that this is not against the law,” Mr. Vallone said, after news of his bill went out over news wires and the Internet yesterday.
The bill would make it illegal to look at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts” for more than a brief period, “in other than a casual or cursory manner,” for the purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed.
The New York Civil Liberties Union issued a statement yesterday calling the proposal “creepy lawmaking.”
“The problem with this legislation is that it’s trying to get at this amorphous, vague behavior of looking, which is very imprecise,” said Donna Lieberman, the group’s executive director. “The language of the bill reflects how vague the activity that they’re trying to get at is, and the problem is that it’s an invitation to abuse, to selective enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police officer.”
She added, “What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore unlawful, who’s to say?”
Mr. Vallone responded that his bill was very narrowly drawn.
“We took great pains to make sure that the normal admiration of God’s creation was not made illegal,” Mr. Vallone said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company