The law does indeed. And it appears Mr. Ferrante was prosecuted under that statute. The entire argument pivots on the understanding of the meaning of a phrase in the law “a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy”

Some argue that the law applies because the thrust of the law is preventing voyeuristic behavior, specifically photography. The other side scraps the conviction because of where the photography takes place – a retail store – a “public” place which negates the expectation of privacy.

I find the second argument to be asinine as did 1 of the 5 judges on the bench. But there is a huge thread of comments on this post at RedState and those making both arguments are having fun!

Appropos the above, surely there must be a law against voyerism in Oklahoma?

So what law did Mr Ferrante break? I should think there would be some criminal law against people sticking cameras up women’s skirts. One would hope, at any rate – even in Oklahoma.

Where do I think the judge got it hung ’round his neck? Perhaps he had in mind the Linda “Lovelace” Marchiano case. She tried to stop distribution of the film because she said she was coerced (gun pointed at her head) into making it. The learned judge in that case called the film “protected speech”.

So rather than judicial activism, I reckon our Oklahoma judge was merely following a long, disgusting line of precedent.