On Wednesday, October 14, I briefly spoke with 4 different persons, asking questions related to the lawsuit against the city of Seattle for SMC 12A.10.120. Two were men; two were women. Two were chiropractors. Two were not chiropractors.
The important items were how they understood the words, “has covered with clothing” in the context of athletics or recreation that leaves exposed some women’s body parts, and how they understood a reasonable expectation of privacy in those cases.
I described some simple hypothetical situations, ones that do take place from time to time in the real world, and asked two questions about them:
Has the . . . covered her . . . with clothing?
Does the . . . have a reasonable expectation that she and/or her torso and/or her . . . together with the rest of her not be viewed or photographed?
The situations or persons I asked about were a woman tennis player whose skirt is lifted while hitting a serve or smash, a cheerleader whose dress or skirt is lifted while dancing, jumping, being thrown, twirling or being lifted on the hands or shoulders of others, a cheerleader who finds that her top or bottom has fallen off, dislodged or moved in a way to produce a nipslip or pantyslip leaving exposed the nip or vulva, a Latin or ballroom dancer whose dress or skirt becomes lifted exposing butt or panties, and a woman in a bikini swimming or playing in waves in an ocean or lake such that her bikini top or bottom falls off or moves leaving exposed her breast or vulva, and a woman wearing clothing showing sideboob.
Has the person covered her butt and/or panties and/or nip and/or vulva with clothing? 3 of the 4 said yes and one in four said “I don’t know,” speaking of the woman tennis player.
Does she have a reasonable expectation that she or her torso or her butt and panties or other parts not be viewed or photographed? All said no.