![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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?
Re: no elder pr0n in MA?
Date: 1 Apr 2009 09:52 am (UTC)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?
Date: 1 Apr 2009 06:16 pm (UTC)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?
Date: 1 Apr 2009 11:31 pm (UTC)I agree but I also understand why some of us are a bit extra-concerned about our rights at the moment.