Dave Lane
07-09-2005, 09:30 AM
Heard this on the radio and didn't really believe it. Too funny!




ADDING to its reputation as the most sexually liberal nation in the world, Sweden has just legalized looking up ladies' skirts!

In a nearly unanimous vote in the Swedish Parliament, the motion was carried 332 to 17. To celebrate the new law, the Parliament's second floor was replaced with a see-through glass floor, and women were invited to stand on the floor, wearing their loosest, widest skirts, with or without underwear. Men were invited to bring their cameras, stand on the floor below and look up.

"I was fully aroused for the next three weeks," gushes male viewer, Tor Lundgren, 24.

The women standing above the men were no less enthusiastic. "It was even more exciting than I'd imagined," reveals Christina Schollin, 32. "I chose to wear no underwear, and, well, I just felt this electric thrill run through me as the men stared up at me. I may just leave my underwear home from now on."

Lutheran minister Gunnar Bjoernstrand, 40, has made peace with the new law. "It was just a question of time before it became legalized. And, really, something harmless like this should not be a crime. Sex and the body are beautiful, natural things.

"When we appreciate and adore the body by looking up ladies' skirts, we are, to a certain degree, giving thanks to the creations of God, who after all made us in His image."

Skip Towne
07-09-2005, 09:35 AM
So shooting beaver is now OK? Do you have to eat all you shoot?

07-09-2005, 09:35 AM
Clocks, chocolate, and sexual harassment! What's not to love? :bravo:

Hammock Parties
07-09-2005, 09:36 AM
Clocks, chocolate, and sexual harassment! What's not to love? :bravo:

That's switzerland.

07-09-2005, 09:38 AM
That's switzerland.

They're all cousins over there.

Joe Seahawk
07-09-2005, 09:39 AM
It's legal in Seattle too.. In fact you can film it if you wish.. ROFL

Friday, September 20, 2002

Filming up women's skirts is ruled legal
Law doesn't ban voyeurism in public, Supreme Court says

Jolene Jang was standing at an ice-cream booth at the Bite of Seattle festival two summers ago, unaware that a man had secretly lowered his video camera so he could film up her dress.

When she found out, she felt violated and hoped he'd go to prison. She became more leery of others. Now she's appalled that Richard Sorrells, the man found guilty of voyeurism for doing it, is no longer guilty of anything.

On Thursday, the state Supreme Court ruled that filming up women's skirts, though "disgusting and reprehensible," isn't actually against the law.

"I think that's ridiculous," said Jang, now 28, who lives in the Seattle area. "I feel a little bit vulnerable about it being known that it's OK."

The high court unanimously agreed the state's voyeurism law "does not apply to actions taken in purely public places."

It overturned the convictions of Sorrells and another man, Sean Glas, who was accused of taking photographs under women's skirts at a Yakima County shopping mall.

Sorrells already served his two-month sentence in King County Jail. He was court-ordered to undergo treatment for sexual deviancy and "intends to remain in treatment" even though it's no longer required of him, according to his attorney, Ken Sharaga.

Sharaga said the court's decision was correct -- it was what he argued last year, when he unsuccessfully tried to get the case dismissed.

"A citizen has to be warned by clear language in a statute that particular conduct is a crime in order to be punished as a criminal," he said. "Something can be wrong and offensive and still not be a crime."

The state's voyeurism law protects people who are in a place where they "would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" -- meaning the person could expect to be able to undress in seclusion or "be safe from hostile intrusion or surveillance."

But the court found the law doesn't apply to filming people in a public place, even if it's underneath their clothes.

"It is the physical location of the person that is ultimately at issue, not the part of the person's body," Judge Bobbe Bridge wrote.

The court, which also upheld Washington's voyeurism law as constitutional, noted that other states have had similar frustrations.

Two years ago, California changed its law to include a broader range of voyeuristic behavior.

In Washington state, Sen. Jeri Costa, D-Marysville, has for two years pushed a bill that would make it illegal to secretly film someone "under or through the clothing." She said yesterday that she hoped the court's decision would be "an impetus to make this a higher priority."

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, said he now plans to introduce a bill "unabashedly plagiarizing" California's law. He expects it to pass easily.

"Allowing that behavior to go unpunished is not what anyone in the Legislature has in mind," he said.

King County Prosecutor's Office spokesman Dan Donohoe agreed that Sorrells' behavior was "conduct that should be covered" by the voyeurism statute.

Sorrells was arrested in July 2000 after Jang told police she caught him reaching into her purse at the Bite of Seattle. Jang said she and others chased him, and her boyfriend tackled him.

Sorrells wanted police to know he wasn't a pickpocket.

"I did not have my hand in her purse. I was holding my camera so I could videotape up her dress," he told them. "I'm not a thief -- I'm a peeping Tom."

Investigators say they later examined the tape from the man's camera and found numerous images of women and girls at the crowded Seattle festival. Many were pictures of underwear shot while the camera was on the ground.

In the other case decided yesterday, Glas was arrested for taking pictures up the skirts of two women at a Union Gap mall in April 1999, according to court documents. The women -- one working at Sears, the other at a cart in the mall -- caught him crouching next to them as he snapped photographs using a flash.

Police said Glas planned to sell the pictures to an Internet Web site that focuses on fetishes.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the mall, too, is a public place where "the voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit 'upskirt' photography."

P-I reporter Tracy Johnson can be reached at 206-467-5942 or tracyjohnson@seattlepi.com


07-09-2005, 09:41 AM
Now we know why you live there Joe.

07-09-2005, 09:46 AM
well when America totally shits the bed with our freedoms... I guess Im moving to Sweden.

07-09-2005, 09:50 AM
"The 5 member Washington Supreme Court decided 4-3 that this type of thing was legal."

Hammock Parties
07-09-2005, 09:50 AM
Now if only we can get men to start wearing skirts.

07-09-2005, 09:52 AM
When can you not trust what was publiched in the Weekly World News (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/politics/61694)?

07-09-2005, 09:57 AM
Now if only we can get men to start wearing skirts.


07-09-2005, 10:27 AM
DAMMIT! I cannot find a .wav file of John Candy talking in Swedish in "Splash!".

Red Dawg
07-09-2005, 10:46 AM
It was against the Law? Man have I been lucky.

Thig Lyfe
07-09-2005, 11:18 AM
Mike Myers could definitely have a Swedish villain in the 4th Austin Powers movie...

4th and Long
07-09-2005, 11:58 AM

07-09-2005, 12:21 PM

07-09-2005, 12:23 PM
that is a satire site.

07-09-2005, 12:25 PM