firecat: man screaming with hand over face (screaming facepalm)
firecat (attention machine in need of calibration) ([personal profile] firecat) wrote2009-03-31 03:03 pm

WTF?

http://volokh.com/posts/1238285248.shtml
the law (in Massachusetts) would make it a very serious crime — tantamount to child pornography — to make, and distribute "with lascivious intent," "any visual material that contains a representation or reproduction of any posture or exhibition in a state of nudity" involving anyone age 60 or over, or anyone who has "a permanent or long-term physical or mental impairment that prevents or restricts the individual’s ability to provide for his or her own care or protection."


http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01/ht01688.htm

Yes, I checked the date, and no, it's not dated April 1.

Since when did the writers of The Onion get elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives?

[identity profile] supergee.livejournal.com 2009-03-31 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, there goes the McCain Porn industry.

[identity profile] flippac.livejournal.com 2009-03-31 10:56 pm (UTC)(link)
So if that passes and I were in Mass., flirting over a webcam in the nude could get me treated as equivalent to a child pornographer because I'm aspie? Lovely.
fauxklore: (Default)

[personal profile] fauxklore 2009-03-31 11:01 pm (UTC)(link)
There is probably good intent behind this - protecting people who are not able to give meaningful consent. The flaw is, of course, the assumption about what defines such people.
snippy: Lego me holding book (Default)

[personal profile] snippy 2009-03-31 11:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Speculating on what stimulated that bill...somebody in a retirement home was abused in this fashion by a caregiver? Or somebody secretly filmed a couple in flagrante in their retirement home and posted it to the internet? In either of those cases, though, wouldn't there be already-existing valid causes of action?

And don't they have anything better to do down to the Massachusetts legislature?

[identity profile] kightp.livejournal.com 2009-03-31 11:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Damn. I guess this means I won't be sending any nekkid self-portraits to my friends in Massachusetts after December...

Just sayin'

[identity profile] epi-lj.livejournal.com 2009-03-31 11:49 pm (UTC)(link)
*not in Massachusetts*

[identity profile] epi-lj.livejournal.com 2009-03-31 11:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Wait, what the fuck??
pameladean: (Default)

[personal profile] pameladean 2009-04-01 12:00 am (UTC)(link)
That's all just crazy, but the "over 60" doesn't seem to make sense even by the horribly twisted lights apparently governing the other categories. Ugh.

P.
lcohen: (morons)

[personal profile] lcohen 2009-04-01 12:34 am (UTC)(link)
exactly. the rest is insane, but that's insane and ageist.

[identity profile] innerdoggie.livejournal.com 2009-04-01 10:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, that's totally weird!

[identity profile] men-in-full.livejournal.com 2009-04-01 12:43 am (UTC)(link)
I can't imagine the sponsors of the bill *intended* to include *everyone* over 60 (does this include any movies made by 60+ actors and actresses?) But if you specify incompetence, then the age thing isn't an issue - because incompetent people at *any* age can't give sexual consent anyway.

But if they didn't - that's incredibly crazy.

[identity profile] rmjwell.livejournal.com 2009-04-01 02:00 am (UTC)(link)
Somebody tell them it means no more naked Helen Mirren.

[identity profile] cakmpls.livejournal.com 2009-04-01 02:43 am (UTC)(link)
As someone over 60, I am VERY pissed off about the implication that I cannot make such a judgment on my own behalf. (Not that anyone wants to see me naked, except my spouse, bless his heart.)

[identity profile] weirdodragoncat.livejournal.com 2009-04-01 04:00 am (UTC)(link)
*sigh* I've never really understood what was so offensive about porn to begin with but trying stamp out Senior citizen/disabled nudity...porn or not...that's just....fail.

It's a body like any other...as long as everyone involved gives informed consent...who the fuck cares who's taking pics of what?

These people need to find something more constructive to do with their time instead of poking around into people's private lives.
ext_481: origami crane (Default)

no elder pr0n in MA?

[identity profile] pir-anha.livejournal.com 2009-04-01 06:19 am (UTC)(link)
i don't quite see the problem here, though i've only read the proposed law very quickly. it's clearly meant to protect people who are not capable of protecting themselves, and who are likely going to be under the care of others who might abuse them.

section 1D has the salient insertion of text: "an elder or a person with a disability adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth".

"adjudicated as incompetent" refers to both "an elder" and "a person with a disability", because there is no comma after "elder". right? ergo, this does NOT cover elders who're competent, or persons with disabilities who are competent.

though i'd have to do the replacements and read the entire thing carefully to see whether this makes any sense or is written way too vaguely.
ext_481: origami crane (Default)

Re: no elder pr0n in MA?

[identity profile] pir-anha.livejournal.com 2009-04-01 06:16 pm (UTC)(link)
ok, so it embraces the power of 'and'; it makes sense, and it's written too vaguely.

you're probably right to wonder. besides, a well-intentioned but badly written law will be used by less well-intentioned people to screw with us.

i just thought the comment section was getting a little ... frothy.