WTF?
http://volokh.com/posts/1238285248.shtml
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?
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?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And don't they have anything better to do down to the Massachusetts legislature?
no subject
Just sayin'
no subject
no subject
P.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But if they didn't - that's incredibly crazy.
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no elder pr0n in MA?
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.
Re: no elder pr0n in MA?
Anyway, if the intent really is only to prevent the abuse of people who are mentally or physically incompetent to consent, the problem could be corrected by a simple wording fix. But I know enough people who think old people and people with disabilities of all types are automatically incompetent and sexless, so I do wonder.
Re: no elder pr0n in MA?
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.
Re: no elder pr0n in MA?
I agree but I also understand why some of us are a bit extra-concerned about our rights at the moment.