Hey, there! Log in / Register
Woman says guy videoed her and other women - and girls - on Newbury Street, so she returns the favor
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Turn about
... is fair play.
However, she was in public, as was he. Creepiness, yes, but no violation of privacy in either case.
Good on her for returning the favor and making him uncomfortable, though
Except that there were minors involved apparently.
I don't know all the laws but surely it's not legal to make prurient videos of thirteen-year-olds as he was apparently doing (I admire what she did but I wish she'd been able to alert or involve them as well). Given the number of views, I think the court of public opinion will take care of this guy, whether or not he broke any laws.
Public property
It's not illegal to film anyone at any age on public property whether it be a cell phone aimed at kids or a drone creeping above a beach getting swimsuit shots. Gross, absolutely. Morally wrong, sure. If this guy wanted to stop being pursued by her he could've stopped in his place and put in a harassment call to the police. But he didn't because he was most likely guilty of being a creep.
this is not actually completely true
Mass General Laws Chapter 272, Section 105
The linked statute refers to
The linked statute refers to photographing parts of the body that are covered by clothing, and also has the clause, "… when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed …".
I don't think "walking down Newbury Street" is a venue where one has any expectation of privacy. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.
This was a few years back and
This was a few years back and was quite the talk on UHub, "such place" includes the MBTA now. Going by the same expansive defition it wouldn't suprise me if Newbury is also a public yet private place.
Yes.
Yes.
http://www.universalhub.com/2014/t-alert-people-upskirting-now-illegal
Except Ms. Dillan doesn't accuse the guy of upskirting, but of photographing clothed parts of women.
I'd like to see...
the guy or guys like him try to make harrassment charges against women who stick up for themselves. I'm really just curious how the court would decide with something similar. I'd have no problem being charged and convicted of harrassment in this case. The guy is dirtbag creep especially filming "clothed" intimate areas of women and CHILDREN. Just because something isn't on the books, doesn't make it ok. Like someone said, the court of public opinion will get this guy.
Better call Saul
n/t.
minors
AFAIK, minors have no extra expectation of privacy when out in public, and if no laws were broken (e.g. this is not a case of upskirting), perhaps it's the woman who should be investigated for smearing the guy's reputation.
Smearing his reputation?
Or merely filming him out in public being an asshole.
There is no special protection rule for the "reputations" of sleazy aggro guys being sleazy and aggro in public, dude.
She didn't film him being an asshole
She filmed him walking around alleging that he is an asshole, huge difference there.
He did kinda admit it...
There's no reason to say it's legal for him to film them unless he filmed them.
yuh
poor him. We don't even know his name.
Which is kind of amazing. Why
Which is kind of amazing. Why has the Internets failed us?
What I wonder
is why she didn't film him while he was allegedly filming any one of these numerous people? She presents no evidence of anything other than him saying "Why do you think I would need your permission?" in response to being accused of filming people in public without their permission.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with an aspiring musician putting out a new music video and looking for publicity.
If only she knew in advance
Her reaction time to discovering the creeper was a little slow. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Doesn't mean it happened either
You'd think we, as an internet community, would have learned our lesson on one sided witch hunts by now.
If it turns out he's innocent
and that she destroyed his reputation wrongly, then she'd better become famous and wealthy, because she'll be paying off his mortgage and putting his kids through college.
When will kids learn to let the legal system do its job.
Nope
The law doesn't work that way, dearie.
Yes
it sure does, in this country.
By your own definitions
You and Saul are smearing her reputation by alleging that her zeal is actionable.
Think about that for just a minute. Let it sink in.
More "men have rights that women don't, men lack responsibility while women own it" nonsense.
It's not a sexist thing
It's a going public with allegations that are huge enough to be handled by the professionals who are trained and paid to handle them thing.
And yet..
And yet upthread we have the allegation that he did nothing illegal. If it's not illegal, how can it be "huge"?
You can't have it both ways, sorry anon, and it IS a sexist thing when you try to.
He basically said it was fine for him to film them.
So he probably filmed them.
That's Awesome
Fat, lonely creeps are always quick to cite the whole "no expectation of privacy in public" thing. It's the closest thing they have to a religion.
"Fat, lonely creeps"
"Fat, lonely creeps are always quick to cite..."
What does his weight have to do with it? If a woman, however guilty, was described this way all hell would break loose.
"Guys, don't talk about the
"Guys, don't talk about the actual event happening right now, let's all get upset about a hypothetical even that hasn't happened!"
You ever consider just NOT be a creeper? It might work out to your benefit!
What does that even mean?
What does that even mean? Creeper is all in someone else's head. Apart from what he supposedly did how is he a creeper? He's not dressed shabbily. Casual work attire. He's wearing shades cause it was a hot sunny day. Fat? He's on the husky side but less of stature than many women in the city.
Guy didn't even curse or anything. He's the proverbial nice guy women say they want. Say they want.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes--that's the "nice guy" we all want--the one shuffling guiltily away after getting busted filming teenagers' asses for their solitary viewing pleasure. I'm sure you're right--all the ladies are putting that in their dating profiles "must love puppies, long walks on the beach, and creeping strangers."
legality
From the linked Cosmo article.
So, Jase, you admit that no law was broken yet you want the police to pursue the guy? Without any video evidence of the alleged offense, maybe he should have you (and Cosmo) investigated for slander.
Mansplaining
Woman filming man acting like a jerk in public = "smearing his reputation"
Man filming girls and women in public = "HIS inalienable right!"
Mansplaining and whining much? Check your privilege, please.
What you've just said
is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Poor baby
Sorry if I don't buy the "men can do it, but women better not or else" nonsense that you and saul are spewing here.
Maybe because grownups know better?
Grownups apparently don't know what they're even arguing about
Men can do what that women can't now? The issue that we're discussing here is this: This lady starts following this man around alleging that he is taking videos / or pictures or people in public. She can't prove this fact, despite her saying she watched him do it for some considerable amount of time. She then posts it online to publicly shame and possibly slander the individual.
The only way you could say that men can do it and women can not in this case, would be, lets say, if he were taking pictures or videos of women (legally) and then posting them on facebook saying "Hey check this slut out." Just because he says it doesn't make it true, especially with no evidence to back it up.
We're not talking at all about a man's right to film in public versus a women's. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, creepy or not, or whether you like it or not.
His camera would prove it
His camera would prove it one way or the other, or would have. You all about that?
So
you think he should have just turned his camera over to her so she could have seen his pictures?
So, what, you're ignorant and
So, what, you're ignorant and proud? That's all I'm getting out of your "well, here's my excuse for why I won't respond congruently to the discussion."
Look up the big-ass debates between freed-blacks and their opponents. The whole "well, we'll just be lowering out intelligence by listening to YOU folk" argument get a lot of play there too.
Ok, a simple wrong would have
Ok, a simple wrong would have done just fine, but uh......
Creepers Unite! Pedofiles
Creepers Unite! Pedofiles have rights too!
They may be terrible human beings
but yes, creepers and pedophiles do indeed have rights. Indeed, that they do have rights is part of what makes America great.
something is not right about this..
How can anyone be sure that he was actually filming and not just using the view finder? Maybe he just got this camera as was testing out the zoom. If there are women walking around, chances are that a guy will test out the zoom in this way. He could have not noticed that he was zooming on underage girls if he was just looking through the view finder.
I am not trying to defend the guy because he could just be a run of the mill creep, but nothing he did was illegal. Stuff like this makes me very uncomfortable.
His reaction pretty much says it all.
I hear you but boy...he comes off as 100% guilty. If he were er...adjusting his viewfinder, don't you think his response would have been completely different?
What?
What is the appropriate reaction then to a crazed woman following you down the street and cursing at you, recording the interaction? Please let us know.
Saul, reread your posts
She's a "crazed woman"
She is "harassing him" and "damaging his reputation".
Meanwhile, you are doing this in such a way that you could easily be considered to be a "crazed commentator" trying to "damage her reputation" while "on a witch hunt".
Your assumptions are pretty transparent here. You are not coming off as a civil libertarian, either, given your double standards.
They were both within their rights to take video. She is well within her rights to confront him. End of story.
She made it public
She intentionally put herself in the spot light here, there is a difference.
He was out in public.
He intentionally went out in public. There is no difference.
I never used the word "harass
I never used the word "harass". And, ok, fine, let me rephrase my above comment:
What is the appropriate reaction then to a woman following you down the street and cursing at you, recording the interaction? Please let us know.
Completely agreed. But Ms. Dillan went beyond recording him. She went to the media and called him out as a sexual predator, and the various media outlets (who are equally complicit in any reputation smearing) went right along with it.
Meanwhile
You and Zootag are publically declaring her to be an insane woman who is "damaging his reputation", as if she has no right to go after him. Also calling her many other unpleasant things for daring to challenge his behavior. And yet, your accusations are also "smearing her reputation" by your own definitions of such.
Which I don't find to be "smearing" at all, actually. However, I do find your conditional inconsistencies to be glaring.
Nope
Never called her insane. But she made a public accusation against this guy with no proof. This isn't a matter of he's in public with no right to privacy. The issue is "Hey world, check out this asshole creep", without actually providing any sort of evidence that he is in fact an asshole creep.
Check your inconsistencies
Note how many times that you are engaging in the same behaviors which you are decrying in her actions.
Again, the similarity is striking, and the differences in the way you label them are also striking.
Sail
The guy changes directions like 3 times and at first pretends to look at his phone. I'd say most people who didn't do anything would not walk away and wander aimlessly like this guy appeared to.
You miss that he was being
You miss that he was being followed. He could have been changing directions to see if he could shake her off.
Where is supposed to walk to anyways if he was already near his destination and only walking away from this woman?
Yea your right.
Nothing suspicious or telling about how he acted there.
What is this page, the twilight zone or something. Geeze.
This.
Watch the video and tell me that's how you'd react. There's no surprise, no outrage--just nervous, guilty avoidance. He knows he got nailed. And if it weren't true then he could dispel the whole thing almost instantly by turning over his camera which he very clearly doesn't want to do. If I'd been mistakenly accused of filming my neighbor taking a shower instead of the fascinating nesting habits of the bluejay family on his windowsill, the first thing I'd do would be to say "oh no--see here? I was filming this mother bluejay--see the egg hatching here?" Case closed.
Go outside
Walk down the street and randomly ask strangers to see the pictures on their phone and see how that works out for you. Guilty or innocent nobody has to show you their pictures just because you ask.
Really?
Right. Turning over your $1,000 camera or phone or whatever to an individual swearing at you and following you down the street is always the prudent course of action. Anyone who doesn't react this way is clearly guilty of something.
Saul and Zetag.
Let me ask you this. If you had to put a number on it (%) what would you say the chances are that this guy was doing what he was accused of doing?
I say 96% chance he was taking photos of girls buts, 4% chance he was just adjusting his phone.
Now you guys: go.......
You weren't there
And neither were we. She also doesn't post any sort of proof of her accusations.
I'm just still waiting here for SG to point out all my "inconsistencies"....
I know we weren't there.
I'm just curious, what do you think happened there? I understand there are several issues here, but one of them is about reading this mans reaction.
If you don't think this guy acted guilty as hell
Then you might need to tweak your basic human skills. That said, if he's innocent, no need to turn over his camera. Ffs--hold it up so she can film it. Call Channel 5 or go on Reddit and show the time stamped footage showing you...innocently adjusting your viewfinder. Otherwise you're just confirming what your actions and body language convey--total guilt.
...kidding, right?
Kidding, right? Do you seriously think a normal man would "test out the zoom" on his camera by zooming in on women's crotches? Not, for example, some interesting architectural feature across the way, or a storefront, or a tree down the block? Anyone who would "test out the zoom" in that way is seriously damaged goods.
Ugh
Because it's not possible she hoped secretly filmed shots of a teenaged girl's crotch by a grown man illegal and she only found out it wasn't after asking te police to pursue the guy first?
By the way, something has to be untrue to be considered slander.
Your lack of thought or logic shows.
This is a good thing
Whether it's legal or not right now isn't as important as whether it's appropriate or not. I don't want to beat the dead Privacy Horse too much but as computers continue to enter every space of our lives, and as lenses become smaller, and software becomes more accurate, we may all wish for there to be legal protections against unlicensed public surveillance. Just because young women are the most obvious victims now doesn't mean that you and I won't become victims to it in the future. Consider the growing talk around using biometrics to verify identities. You might come to consider digital video recordings of your body within a certain resolution threshold to be rather intimate, and not within the Public Domain. But clearly we couldn't call for an immediate end to video recording in public spaces. The solution is going to be drawn out and nuanced. This is a privacy discussion that's harder to have than one about NSA personal data collection because most of the victims now are good looking women.
Thanks for posting this news item, adamg.
The solution
The solution is going to be for people to act like civilized human beings who don't need an explicit, iron-clad law to prevent them from following every antisocial impulse.
Direct Link To Video / Article, Without Going Through Facebook
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a48507/badass-woman-confronts-...
Off her meds?
Before publicly shaming someone, she really needed to have video showing him doing what she claimed rather than just video following him around like a nutter. If he did do what she claimed, he did behave creepy for sure, but that's still not illegal like somebody wanking on the T.
Second, If you look at her Facebook page, you will see her claim a former boyfriend tried to kill her in 2005, so she has been traumatized and is still dealing / discussing.
Her music career necessitates self-promotion, so that invites skepticism. Its one thing to tell some guy he is a creep, another to follow the guy back and forth around the street yelling at him. Another level to have your phone out simulating that you are recording him. Another to actually record him. Another to post it to your Facebook page. Another for it to be marked Public, not just for Friends. Then, to contact/agree for an interview/use by Cosmo starts to really look like attention seeking at someone else's expense.
Cosmo? Really? "25 Ways to get Hot Guys to notice you!" Cosmo? That Cosmo, which exploits young impressionable women to sell magazines and advertising aimed at them?
[more edit: This also seems derivative of the viral video of the woman walking NYC streets receiving unsolicited verbal attention. Those guys got busted in the act but weren't confronted. Plenty of other videos were made of guys getting busted and confronted. This one is a guy not getting caught in the act, just confronted]
You are?
Better call your doctor, then. Maybe get a refill or discuss the side effects that are bothering you.
Otherwise, keep your sexist and ableist "prescriptions" to yourself.
Nope
You're still wrong.
Take off the Fedora
And go back and read your own comments.
What?
She defamed an individual with no proof? I've made no accusations against her, other than looking for publicity, which is true if you look at her FB page, but if you can find something else then please let me know.
Wow, I am agreeing with a
Wow, I am agreeing with a post by Mark!
former boyfriend tried to
former boyfriend tried to kill her in 2005
Is this a substantiated thing?
Public Facebook post
Before publicly shaming
Nonsense. It would be better if she had physical evidence, but she saw what she saw. She was a witness to a creepers non-criminal anti-social behavior. She called him out on it.
I can appreciate that you don't know for sure if he did what she thinks she saw. But, the idea that she can't take any action without physical proof is crazy.
Internet court of public opinion
Yes, there are two levels here.
1. video depicting him clearly aiming recording device at crotches. Harder to prove when someone is doing more artistic / old time street photography angles when cameras typically had a top mounted view finder and the camera was held at waist or chest level. Think Hasselblad, Rolleiflex etc.
2. The actual images of crotches/asses having been filmed. Even so, with so much actual nudity on the Internet among millions of daily new uploaded images, I don't understand the possible fascination.
She had neither for her public shaming, then there is:
3. Just the undocumented claim.
Watch closely, folks
MarKKK's next hobbyhorse: we're all awful people for internet-shaming MarKKK for being such a dipshit.
Finding a way to live with it..
Reading all these men
Reading all these men question a woman's right to confront a creep is so sad. Almost everyone of you is working to invalidate her experience. Your imagination detailed and so telling. You are all so upset she got frustrated and broke her silence. Why?
As a man I want to raise a daughter who would be strong and brave and confront injustice. As a man I support women to stop being silent and to confront men this.
You want your daughter to
You want your daughter to post videos of herself swearing at and following guys on the street, claiming they're a perverted creep without any evidence other than her own word to back up the claims, and admit the guy did nothing illegal yet still asking for all her followers to find the guy and shame him?
Just because something isn't
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it right.
video woman
I would never photograph unknowing subjects on the street. that being said if she started chasing me like that? 'LEAVE ME ALONE! I BROKE UP WITH YOU 2 WEEKS AGO! STOP FOLLOWING ME! IT"S NOT ME ITS YOU!!
find a cab to hop into and never go back on newbury street again.
A cab when you need one? Laf.
A cab when you need one? Laf.
Her new music video is called
Her new music video is called PredatoryPrey. Funny.
Here's the oddest thing about this for me
I'm going to take her accusations as fact for the sake of argument.
At one point she demands that he delete video of her noting "I did not give you permission." Yet she is recording him while making that statement. I mean, the guy (per accusation) is probably a perve, but there is a lack of consistency in her argument. If she doesn't say that, it's a powerful denunciation, but then she gets a bit hypocritical (rather than leaving the hypocrisy on the other side, where it belongs.)
its...kind of the point. That
its...kind of the point. That's why she keeps asking "How does it feel?"
What's the point?
Either people have the right to take video of people without their permission or they don't. She seems to want to have it both days- taking video without permission yet demanding video get erased since she didn't give permission.
Aside from that, the whole "how does it feel?" angle is a great one.
She doesn't zoom in on his
She doesn't zoom in on his crotch and buttocks.
So permission is only needed in some cases?
Let's be clear: I'm not defending this guy or criticizing her for making the video. I'm just calling out a bit of hypocrisy with her approach.
Have you ever seen the B reel played when the TV news does a report on obesity? Yes, not what this guy was (allegedly) doing, but still.
I am amused by her comment
"just another day on Newbury Street". Not sure that Newbury is the haven for perverts but anywho...
She says that she could see his viewfinder, from three feet away, and be sure enough that he was filming crotches and assess. She must have very good eyesight.
Aside from her assumptions, we do not know what he was doing. Maybe just filming for class assignment? And what if he was? So now his picture is all over the internet as an assumed sexual predator. And, yes, there is no law against filming on a public street. And she really has no right to tell him to delete the film. Yeah, before you lop my head off, I get it. No one should be filming the private parts of women and girls. But we only have her side of the story and his embarrassed reaction.
Be if better if she just called the police, if she had concerns, and had them handle the entire situation.
Some information on modern digital cameras
Many modern digital cameras have a non-optical viewfinder that is a digital display. It's really not that hard to see from three feet away.
You're the lazy dumbass kid who always told the teacher that the dog ate your homework, aren't you?
other posts of hers
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1010202108...
Look where that creep is aiming his camera.
I guess it's fine when it's for your own self-promotion.
Possibly just reviewing a shot
and not aiming the camera to take one.
Yes but
again, we don't know where he is aiming his camera. If indeed he is aiming at anything. And whether she is ok (or not) with her own butt being filmed is not the same as some alleged pervert taking snaps of women's vajajays.
sarcasm
Clearly sarcasm gets lost on the Internet.
But how do you know this videographer is not also a perv and is not zooming in while claiming to review shots? How do you know? I mean, look at the evidence: a guy standing mere feet from a woman, aiming a camera at her backside. And we even have the photographic evidence to prove it. Proof!
Guy looks like Tony Romo....
Guy looks like Tony Romo....
She posted her own photos of her ass
via her public Twitter feed promoting her music video:
https://www.facebook.com/jasedillan/photos/a.10154037783101679.107374182...
and
https://www.facebook.com/jasedillan/photos/a.10154037783101679.107374182...
The guy didn't even need to bother taking photos. The first one is zoomed in, just the way he is accused of liking.
7.6
7.6
Oh marc, so much to explain.
Do we really need to explain to you how Cosmo magazine doesn't equal "she wants it"? 21st century here, having posted a picture of herself doesn't mean you are off the hook. You just keep on cyber-stalking and trying to convince yourself that the perv was entitled because her FB profile is public.
On what planet do you spend most of your time?
You're such a stupid asshole!
Planet Earth, not planet Hypocrite
What exactly are you calling stupid? Her self promotion?
Yeah dumbass
We would presume she is acquainted with this man and thus has control over the circumstances and environment.
WCVB interview
This woman now has an "exclusive" interview on the WCVB 5 news. More and more it seems like she has an agenda. Can a reality show be far behind?
Nah, that's just the media being the media
I'm not sure how they can call it "exclusive" given she's already talked to Cosmo, but whatever. Reporters see this thing has gone viral and they all want to get her on the phone/on camera.
"Agenda" implies she's been just sitting on Newbury Street for ages waiting to catch some guy in the act. Me, I doubt that's what happened, but what do I know?
You know
I don't doubt that this guy was inappropriately filming her. I used to work at a Boston organization that seemed to be like a flame to the moths of sex offender-types, and I earned the nickname "Dateline NBC" because I had a sixth sense for catching them in the act such that we had enough evidence to give them the boot. Suffice it to say, I have a decent eye for catching these things.
I suspect this guy is guilty because he continuously engages with her, smirking when she confronts him, and even slips up by saying, "I don't need your permission legally," instead of sticking to the story that he wasn't recording her. Additionally, if he was not filming her, he would have been far more upset and threatened by her behavior, because unprovoked, that kind of behavior coming from a stranger would be terrifying. He seems to understand that she is not a random crazy person, but a person who has a reason to be acting crazy specifically directed at him.
However, that is not to say she behaved appropriately.
A better use of her time and efforts would have been to pretend she did not see him and then filming him filming others, so she would have evidence to send to the police. Sex offenders operate in the shadows: they are good at not getting caught, because they know to straddle the line between illegal and "there's a plausible explanation for this that doesn't involve me being a sex offender." They stick to that gray area where there is no proof. They are experts at making up excuses and putting victims on the defensive, accusing them of slander and threatening to sue, saying they were just scratching an itch or adjusting their pocket, you just have a personal vendetta against them or their ethnic group and misinterpreted it because of your ulterior motives.
Confronting a sex offender directly like this can get them-at best- banned from a particular establishment, but in order to get them in trouble and get them off the streets, and avoid negative consequences for yourself, you are best off quietly recording or photographing them yourself, then calling the police with a detailed description of the offender and his/her behavior from a space where it is safe to do so, offering up copies of your photos or videos of anything you witnessed.. A cop would know the correct procedure for gaining access to his phone for the proper evidence; her profanity-laced demands for his phone do nothing but encourage him to wipe his memoy, and sound like a mugging to passerby.
Best post here so far
After watching her interview on WCVB and reading your post, I'm almost certain the guy was being creepy and agree with you that she had much more effective options available to her. There are more media whores today than ever competing for attention, so more concrete evidence fights increasing viewer fatigue and cynicism.
A cop would know the correct
Evidence of what crime, exactly? Ms. Dillan even conceded in the Cosmo piece that no law was broken. So if the guy committed no crime, on what legal grounds can law enforcement obtain a search warrant?
Inappropriate and illegal are not the same thing.
He probably has a concealed penis
Nearly cause enough today.
The male is believed to work
The male is believed to work for a mid sized construction firm in Boston. If his company ever hopes to work again on say a Children's Hospital Project they should invite the FBI to have his work computer's hard drive and access to his company email. He seems to like underage girls, He has no problem snapping pictures of adolescent girls privates on the street, what does he do in private? This kind of behavior just doesn't "happen" once, his whole demeanor was entitlement and objectification, women are not real to him. He will undoubtedly be a registered sex offender soon... jailin', then have at defending him guys. Guy was wearing his wedding band!!
sad state of "journalism"
There is no police report. The alleged victim concedes that no law was broken. There is no video evidence of the alleged behavior.
Yet Channel 5 gives two minutes to the woman to defame someone, and all but calls her for a hero for what she did.
"Only On 5: Man’s creepy move that led to woman’s viral video"
Ahhhh, but it's all good because the network blurred out the guy's face, and clearly no one has the Google skills to find the original footage.
Absent any other evidence beyond the woman's word and her recorded rant, isn't it just as likely that the woman is a crazed publicity-seeker? We have no evidence to disprove the claim, after all.
This is what passes for "news" these days?
And suppose the guy did do as Ms. Dillan claimed. It's not illegal. So why doesn't she do something productive and clamor for a law to be passed that makes the guy's behavior a crime? But that'd take some courage and actual hard work, I suppose.
Otherwise, how is this "story" any different than a conservative guy going on a rant about women he sees on Newbury Street in the summer wearing what he feels are suggestive and inappropriate clothing? "I know it's not illegal but it is entirely inappropriate, especially with kids around."
This pervert who took lewd
This pervert who took lewd pictures of little girls has a distinct look, and that man-bag slung across his body isn't something you see too often in Boston. I'll be keeping an eye out for him -- if I caught anyone doing something similar, I would confront them as well.
I witnessed an old man taking pictures of very young girls despite the protests of their mother and alerted mall security. The whole incident turned my stomach -- the old guy ignored her, kept snapping away while following them, cackling the entire time. Disgusting.