Disaboom reports on an idiotic bill that would make it a crime to "photograph with 'lascivious intent' a person over the age of 60 or a person with a disability who has been declared mentally incompetent."
State Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein says the bill she sponsored was intended to protect vulnerable populations from sexual predators, but some disability advocates and law buffs have criticized the amendments as restricting the sexual freedom of seniors and people with disabilities.It's idiotic for two reasons -- first, for making it a crime to take a nude photo of a consenting adult (I'm talking about people over the age of 60 who are mentally competent), and second, taking away the ability of people over the age of 60 to do whatever the heck they want to do without interference from the government. Let's hope this bill dies a slow quick, agonizing death.If Mass. HB 1668 is passed, a person violating the new provisions of the law would receive a mandatory minimum sentence of at least ten years in prison or a fine of at least $10,000. This would include spouses photographing one another with "lascivious intent."
RSS Feed
How about a quick, agonizing, death instead?
Someone really didn't like lemonparty!
Is it
(a person over the age of 60) or (a person with a disability who has been declared mentally incompetent) ?
Or is it
(a person over the age of 60 or a person with a disability) who has been declared mentally incompetent) ?
Makes a big difference.
Lock 'em up with all those minors who got charged as sex predators for taking nude pictures of themselves.
Clearly the law was drafted in response to a concern that institutionalized people could be victimised -- lemme guess, there was an actual case of an unscrupulous orderly taking pics of alzheimer's patients and posting them on the internet? American lawmaking is SOOO predictable.
Having said that, they typically overreached. Why not a law that addressed the issue of consent instead?
well there goes alt.binaries.pictures.senior-citizens I guess
Lumping people over 60 in with people that have been declared mentally incompetent is pretty insulting, I think. Why does Kathi-Anne hate America?
@jfrances Technically, the 2nd interpretation could be possible. But damn, if they want to express something like this, they better use appropriate wording, "A person, who a) is either over the age of 60 or has a disabaility and b) has been declared mentally incompetent.
Personally, I don't think that this makes remotely any sense. Why treat someone, who has been declared mentally incompetent, different because of his age? And isn't being mentally incompetent already a disablity?
#2 - It's the first one.
Darn, guess Jon Swift's idea won't be implemented.
@4 and 9 - It definitely is the first.
The text of the bill is here. The law it's amending is here.
The first edit in the bill changes the title of the law from:
to:
The second edit in the bill changes the first words of the law from:
to:
Um, how can you prove 'lascivious intent'?
the lube
1. How is anyone supposed to know what photographs you take in private?
2. If it's about exploiting the mentally incompetent or unsuspecting grannies in order to publish porn, then it oughta say so.
3. I'm missing something.
I'm over sixty and would be delighted to pose for lascivious photos. Too bad nobody's offering! Seriously, this is the silliest bit of lawmaking I've seen in the last --- oh ---hour or so.
59... the new "barely legal"
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.
Kathi-Anne Reinstein should move in with Michelle Bachman, in the Federal Home for the Completely Stupid.
This sound like a job for ...
S P E N C E R T U N I C K !
http://www.spencertunick.com/
Hey, Massachusetts! We here in Oklahoma resent you trying to steal our thunder with your ridiculous bill. We'll go you one better and lower the age to 40.
@ Teller #15:
1. It turns out that not all lascivious nude photos remain private. (I hear there are even some on the internet now!)
2. Maybe so, but laws aren't enforced based on "intent."
3. If by "missing something" you mean "missing out on hot GILF-on-GILF action," then yes you are!
Banned in Boston.
This is the first step towards Carousel!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsoqKkI9yds
No, Mark. Let's hope it dies a FAST, agonizing death!
As a resident of the Commonwealth, I can only groan and roll my eyes once again, as our backwater Nanny State politicians once again restrict our liberties "for our own good".
This is the home of Harvard, MIT and a dozen other top-quality centers of knowledge and philosophy, but this is the best we can elect to public office? Ack.
This is idiotic. One of the cosponsors is my state legislator, so I'm first going to friend him on facebook and then tell all of our friends about this!
Looks like there's waaay too many reps in Mass.
Let's hope it dies a QUICK agonizing death...
Joking aside, this does raise some serious issues. It isn't clear to me what we should do when one member of a couple that was previously ok is no longer able to consent due to inability to communicate or a reduction in mental facilities. It is nice to base things off of consent, but this becomes a real problem when considering eldery couples.
Okay, from now on, lets just drop the pretense and start explicitly using government as a whip to bully people with. If you don't take your happy pills, I'll make it illegal for you to have fun.
When can we get a law that locks up legislators for proposing unconstitutional laws? As a legislator, job one is knowing the constitutions of of your country and state. Failing at that should be gross criminal neglect.
"Over the age of 60"?
Maybe they're really just trying to protect the rest of us from being grossed out (unless you're talking nude photos of Cher. . . . rrrrwwowwrrrr!)
@HeruRaHa
'59... the new "barely legal" '
Brilliant.
I'm also vaguely worried about the whole "disability" thing. Are they talking physical or mental disability? If I lose a limb or two, I would like to imagine that I still have the right to have lascivious photos posted of me. Physically disabled can be sexual, too!
Brainspore@22:
1. I KNEW stuff like that was going on.
2. Isn't "intent" what 'conspiracy to blah blah' means?
3. Busted.
Next up, in order to prevent people from taking advantage of old folks by getting them to sign horribly abusive contracts, they'll make it illegal to enter into a contract with anyone over the age of 60.
Let's just make seniors have all the same lack of rights as children! Awesome.
It sure sound like whoever wrote this assumes that people 60 years old generally don't know what they're doing. I would guess that quite a few Massachusetts legislators are over 60 and don't consider themselves a "vulnerable population".
your tax dollars at work. next week - they outlaw punching yourself in the face, as well as a bunch of other things that no one wants to do anyways.
It makes perfect sense to me that the legal age of consent should be between 18 and 60.
But what about the rest of us that plan on becoming senile before we are 60?
The intent to protect those who are mentally incompetent from abuse is good, but this law appears poorly written. Back to the drawing board.
Has anybody got this clowns address?
I'm suddenly compelled to send him pictures of me genitals.
To a hundred year old ,60 is young.
I agree anyone exploited should be able to sue
in court but as i read this law it's a bit screwy.
I thought that child porn laws focused on a child in a sexually suggestive pose or with genitals gratuitously displayed, but they changed it to plain old nude...
Guess you can't take a picture of your kid in their birthday suit anymore? No naked babies?
I really hope someone sues the author of this bill for age discrimination.
If anybody's curious, here's an example of a Massachusetts case dealing with how to prove "lascivious intent."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/8522&invol=1
All good and well to joke but there are folks doing serious work who will be effected by the bill if it gets up -
http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2009/04/10/banned-in-boston-making-films-about-older-adult-sexuality/
Call Ms Kathi-Anne Reinstein's office - Telephone: (redacted) (from her website)
http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/k_r1.htm
Now i have a new thing to worry about when i get old, when i retire will the government stop me doing sexy things with my wife?
Does this mean they'll be burning all of Harriet Casdin-Silver's work?
(she's dead so i guess they can't arrest her in person)
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/articles/2008/03/12/harriet_casdin_silver_83_was_holographic_art_pioneer/
And i can vouch that at least one of Joel-peter-Witkin's model's was from boston.
Has he been notified?
(I no longer have his contact info)
More info on the cultured sophisticate pushing this bill.
in 2006, Kathi-Anne Reinstein , the Revere state representative, also filed legislation
to make the Fluffernutter the official state sandwich.
http://www.universalhub.com/node/4712
Brainspore, laws are most certainly enforced based on intent. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter and murder, or murder and aggravated murder.
Some 'elder' Massachusetts politician is clearly concerned about racy personal daguerreotypes surfacing in the near future. Is there a short list of over-60 Mass. pols in the throes of divorce?
I'm a 40 year old female disabled wheelchair user. What I do in my bedroom (or kitchen, living room couch, or hanging from my rafters) is no one's damned business. If my able bodied boyfriend & I decide to take sexy pictures of me, that's between us. And of course they would be lascivious, that's the damned point. hubba hubba. I don't need someone out there making decisions 'for my own good.' This pending legislation has to be about personal specific consent and privacy. I've experienced over the years the intrusions of people, who have no idea what they are talking about, trying to protect 'vulnerable populations.' The condescending and ignorant belief that the disabled and elderly are completely lacking in sexual desire and drive is absurd. I fear the young looking legislator instigating this legislation has little or no contact with the people she is trying to make a stand for. I imagine she is the same sort of person who would pat me on the head, speaking loud and slow. I don't need that kind of help, thank you very much. If she and others want to protect those vulnerable populations, those who truly cannot speak up for themselves, I recommend Kathi-Anne Reinstein learn who they are and how better to define them.
what's worse to me is that this bill somehow equates people over 60 with people who have disabilities. lumping those two disparate qualifiers together makes it seem like the state of massachusetts believes that being over 60 is a disability in and of itself.
@ #50 posted by dculberson:
Brainspore, laws are most certainly enforced based on intent. That's why there's a difference between manslaughter and murder, or murder and aggravated murder.
I should have clarified my point. What I meant was that the intent of the legislators isn't what determines how laws are enforced, or against whom.
For example, the laws against publishing pictures of naked kids were intended to stop child pornographers, but badly written legislation has been used to ruin the lives of minors who take pictures of themselves.
How else are we going to combat the epidemic of sexting among the elderly>
Somethings wrong with this country. The people running it are either absolute idiots or corrupt greedy bastards.
When I get old, I'll move to Boston and entertain myself by sexting people and getting them arrested.
These dumkopfs are clearly encroaching Rule 34. This WILL not stand.
#56, those are mutually exclusive?
@52
I totally agree! Unfortunately every time someone gets hurt an enterprising politician will pop up and make a stand "to protect" ... but all that does is make life more difficult (and sometimes criminal) for everybody.
@56
I'd say it's more of an or than an either/or. Below Average Intelligence and Above Average Avarice is a pretty common case for pols.
Hw mch f mrkt cn thr b fr phts f nd, k-k ld ppl?
LD TD: "Jmmy, gt ld f ths n! thnk sh's stll gt bth hr hps!"
LD JMMY: "Yh, bt lk t ths n. Nps r stll bv th wst!"
LD TD: "Mn, tht's n ht chck! nd lk, n tth!"
LD JMMY: "Bns! Mn, 'd lk t drv hr vr th brdg!"
LD TD: "Y hd t brng tht p?!"
ftr dcds f dprvty, lt 'm.
sspct th Mss. Lgsltr s jst f**kng wth Td Knndy nywy.
Great. I've only got fifteen years left for my potential nude modeling career.
TroofSeeker,
The point of this post seems to have whooshed right over your head.
I see several possible points, Anti:
1. Massachusetts is protecting the dignity of elderly, mentally diminished people.
2. The Massachusetts legislature is caught up in another fascist conservative effort to control the lives and liberties of people whom they disapprove of.
3. Massachusetts is attempting to cope with an abundance of perverts.
Mark called it idiotic, so I'll go with #2.
Can I have my vowels back, if I promise no more cracks about TK, or long, saggy...anything?
You might want to check out the posts on the blog WHAT WE SAW TODAY regarding this issue. I am a fine arts nude model over the age of 60. I am mentally competent and more physically fit than most women in their 30s and 40s. Take a look.
http://drlightness.blogspot.com/2009/05/fluffernutter-update-on-over-60-bill.html
http://drlightness.blogspot.com/2009/05/you-had-better-be-older-than-18-and.html
Unbearable Lightness