Man tells MA Supreme Court it's his constitutional right to take "up skirt" photographs

[zazen]

14. in pornography, women's bodies are men's protected speech

Like with Dred Scott 160? years ago . . . there's this misconception that denying masculinists (of both genders) the right to use others' bodies to communicate the idea that those occupying the role of gender female deserve to be violated is denying them the right to free speech. As MacKinnon was the first to point out, it's similar to the mid-19th century case, when the SCOTUS returned Dred Scott because to not do so would violate "property rights."

Individual property and speech rights do not extend to include other human's bodies.

Maybe the KKK could start taking photos of random black people and posting them to their web site compare their supposed attributes as plantation workers or something, using the same racist tropes we find in pornography. THEN we would see some outrage. It's no different than this sonofabitch feeling that women's private sexuality belongs to him as his natural right. Black people are not mine to photograph evaluate for my personal use to prop up some notion that I'm superior because I'm white. Women are not this man's property to furtively photograph for his personal use.

But he's brainwashed into thinking it's "biological" and he's a radical, free-speech kinda guy. Wonder where he got that idea.