今鋪仆街啦 𥄫女都隨時比人拉

上面有師兄講咗


列明晒要
1. 受害人一定要做緊Private act 只限去廁所，露私人部位，性行為呢三樣
2. Location - 喺一個reasonably expected to provide privacy嘅地方，受害人做緊嗰3種行為之一
3. For purpose of sexual gratification 睇/影人係為咗sexual gratification
4. Knows the victim does not consent

其實都幾窄吓，如果連公眾地方影/偷窺裙底都唔包

／之前偷拍裙底post提到私隱公署都有講過裙底係私隱地方／

邊個po?
you mean this?
https://lihkg.com/thread/640506/page/1

偷拍裙底係侵犯私隱
但係罪名一向都應該與私隱無關
都係擾亂公眾秩序、破壞公眾體統之類

／合理私隱個範圍根本超大，你啲咩公廁只係舉例之一，唔係只限嗰啲地方／
法例應用範圍不限公廁
但係除咗私人地方外
仲有咩公眾地方你會合理預期無人見到你？

講其他法例咪離晒題囉

唔使咁激動，睇得出你係呢個社會嘅受害者，加油

哦 好簡單姐 香港戲院好多都有電梯既
轉一轉場景囉
我諗住去睇戲 係扶手電梯唔小心望到前面有條女 勁索 條裙短到去patpat 望到條底係咩色 個下睇到硬晒 比休班警當正我係咸濕佬 捉左我 條女又無預條底會比人睇wo 上到法庭 2個一齊砌我生豬肉
我入罪機會大唔大？🤔

個十單仲要無講係非禮男定女，非禮女咁其實一樣唔係保護男性

一起底
一隻護主犬開post做海狗
樓豬直頭係自爆五毛

最新民調：超過一般人反對特朗普
https://lihkg.com/thread/619646/page/2?ref=ios
- 分享自 LIHKG 討論區

已經唔使再回
一齊block

你好叻叻豬

好行唔送

其實包埋影裙底好合理，現時都冇針對影裙底嘅法例

／裙底屬於合理期望私穩地方／

sor 你無錯

加拿大條法例寫

Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy

英格蘭條法例寫
a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and—

我找到相關加拿大嘅case
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2017/2017ONCA0778.htm

[95] However, as part of the reasonable expectation of privacy requirement of the offence, Parliament included the concept of “circumstances” that give rise to that expectation. Arguably, there will be circumstances where it is possible to have a limited reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

[96] One example may be if the privacy expectation is limited to areas of the body that are covered or hidden. An offence that has become more common and required specific legislation in a number of U.S. states is referred to as “upskirting”: one way it is done is a person drops something at the feet of a woman wearing a skirt, then bends down to pick it up, and takes a picture of her underneath her skirt.[2] Often these pictures are then posted online. In my view, that would be a circumstance where a woman in a public place had a reasonable expectation of privacy that no one would look under her skirt.

[97] The issue of whether there are circumstances where a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, that is, a place that is open to the public or a segment of the public, and where the person knows they are not alone has had only limited judicial consideration.

一味講立法有個閪用咩
律政屍 警犬班閪人點執法就一個二個避開唔答

1係個條例嚟 hk建議跟足uk 錯乜嘢？


上面已貼咗影裙底uk都唔用voyeurism告
hk law reform commission自己都propose放落sexual assault度 喺另一份文件

https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/allnews/thoughtleadership/?itemno=32134

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/upskirting-criminal-offence-why-specific-charge-voyeurism-videos-photos-cps-sex-predators-a7885691.html

屌 回之前冇睇 嘥鳩我時間

原來如此
絲打讀law?

UK同canada條例有分別

而且跟uk法例好多時係用唔到voyeurism告裙底相

dur.ac.uk/news/allnews/thoughtleadership/?itemno=32134

independent.co.uk/life-style/upskirting-criminal-offence-why-specific-charge-voyeurism-videos-photos-cps-sex-predators-a7885691.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40897934

/以事論事/

就以事論事，勞工法例同窺淫罪有咩抵觸？
兩樣都提上立法程序有咩問題

其實時事同學術台不嬲好多人鍾意討論辯論

下下淨係屈人打手/女權閪好冇意思

係立法保障一小撮人利益

Anyway包埋影裙底係好合理

至於你舉例基佬入男廁好似膠咗啲喎

除非你話你屙尿嗰陣，個基佬「控」埋你到望你賓州

如果係合理距離望到，又點會犯法

唔通好似啲人咁鳩噏當秘笈咩

留言比啲質素得唔得呀

好行唔送

因為呢個政府緊要野唔做，專做無謂野。
現時香港法例 人分幾等

第一係政府
第二有錢人
第三女人老人小童
第四係男人

人人平等係唔存在

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/hong-kong-law-and-crime/article/2146710/hong-kongs-proposed-anti-voyeurism-law-may

啱啱再出咗新聞 大家有意見可以寫信去

“If the incident took place on the MTR, which is a public area, the victim would have to collect sufficient evidence [to prove this expectation].”