Ronda Storms’ New Crusade: Voyeurism

Buffoon Award

That jolly logo is for Ronda Storms, the creationist queen of the Florida Senate back in 2008. See: Buffoon Award Winner — Ronda Storms. To remind you of Ronda’s glory days three years ago, see Her Most Rapturous Moment.

Here’s Rapturous Ronda’s page at the Florida Senate’s website. Isn’t she lovely?

We constantly marvel at the incredibly wide-ranging intellectual versatility of our old creationist friend. Ronda is not only a major force in The Controversy between evolution and creationism, she also plays an active role in controversies about Prayer in Florida Schools, and also Naked School Boys, and also the Dewey Decimal System, and also religious license plates, and also serving alcohol at private museum events, and also gambling at Indian casinos.

We’ve probably missed a few of her righteous efforts, but you get the idea. Bless her heart, Ronda’s career is devoted to keeping us free of sin. Today we read in the Tampa Tribune that Lawmakers want stiffer penalties for video voyeurism. Stiffer penalties — cute title, huh? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

State Rep. Dan Young has authored a bill changing the status of video voyeurism in Florida from a misdemeanor to a third degree felony. “It’s aimed at strengthening the video voyeurism statute so that we can prosecute people that are violating the privacy of our citizens,” said Young, a Tampa Republican.

Okay, but where does Ronda fit into this issue? Ah, that’s later in the article, after a titillating tale about two women who found cameras in their rented apartment:

State Sen. Ronda Storms, a Brandon Republican, is sponsoring the Senate version of the bill.

What’s the bill all about? The newspaper tells us that the sheriff’s office didn’t pursue the matter of the cameras in the ladies’ apartment because it was only a misdemeanor. Therefore:

Under the bill, video voyeurism would be a second degree felony for repeat offenders and people convicted of recording video of children 16 years or younger who are in places where they expect privacy.

We went searching for it, because we know you like to — ahem! — peek at these things. Here’s the legislature’s page for Ronda’s bill: SB 436: Video Voyeurism, and you can read the text of it here: An act relating to video voyeurism.

Go on, take a look — a long look. Let your eyes linger over the newly-formed phrases. Savor the linguistic loveliness, swoon over the legalistic suppleness. Imagine the squirming of those entwined in its sinuous provisions.

Ronda’s bill not only raises the penalty, it revises the definition, by providing:

“Place and time when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means a place and time when a reasonable person would believe that he or she could fully disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that the person’s undressing was being viewed, recorded, or broadcasted by another, including, but not limited to, the interior of a residential dwelling, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth.

The article in the Tampa Tribune ends with this quote from Ronda:

“I am familiar with the case, where those young women had an expectation of privacy and yet the sheriff’s office was not able to pursue the prosecution because it was just a misdemeanor and that not ought to be,” Storms said.

This is one of those rare times when we’re not opposed to Ronda’s legislation, because her bill doesn’t promote theocracy. It actually protects private behavior. Ronda has lucid moments, and this seems to be one of them. The only reason we’re writing about it is because it gives us a chance to revisit our creationist friend and wonder when she’ll unleash the inner craziness for which she’s justly famous.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Ronda Storms’ New Crusade: Voyeurism

  1. I’ll be waiting, because this is much too sane for Ronda.

  2. ““I am familiar with the case, where those young women had an expectation of privacy and yet the sheriff’s office was not able to pursue the prosecution because it was just a misdemeanor…”

    I am not familiar with that case, so maybe someone can enlighten me. How does something being a misdemeanor prevent prosecution? A politically-motivated DA might not think a misdemeanor is worth a lot of effort, but that’s a choice, not a matter of law.

  3. RetiredSciGuy

    Curmy: “Go on, take a look — a long look. Let your eyes linger over the newly-formed phrases. Savor the linguistic loveliness, swoon over the legalistic suppleness. Imagine the squirming of those entwined in its sinuous provisions.”

    That’s good. Is your main career writing romance novels?

  4. RetiredSciGuy says: “That’s good. Is your main career writing romance novels?”

    Slowly the truth is exposed as the concealing garment is removed, button by button …

  5. @ericI am not familiar with that case, so maybe someone can enlighten me. How does something being a misdemeanor prevent prosecution? A politically-motivated DA might not think a misdemeanor is worth a lot of effort, but that’s a choice, not a matter of law.

    Of course you’re exactly right; the prosecutors and police are using the discretion their positions give them to decide what cases are worth bringing to court. Ronda Storms disagrees and wants the law to overrule them in the future. So I’m a little less sanguine about it than SC is, but I don’t live in Florida so it’s not a big deal to me if they want to prosecute anything and everything.

  6. Curmudgeon: “This is one of those rare times when we’re not opposed to Ronda’s legislation, because her bill doesn’t promote theocracy.”

    What has frustrated me in the ~15 years since becoming mostly conservative is that these extreme authoritarians often do the right thing, but for the wrong reason – e.g. their own obsession with sex, “this book says so,” belief that “end times” are near, etc. But, to quote an old song, then they go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like “‘Darwinism’ is ‘weak’ and leads to evil behavior.” If anything, it’s their mission to keep people ignorant of how Nature works that facilitates evil behavior.