Unbelieveable!!!! Age Discrimination? - GoFuckYourself.com

davecummings · 03-30-2009, 03:47 PM

Per the article at http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=33842, headlined by Gene Ross as:

"3/30/2009 10:33 AM PST

The Dave Cummings Act? Massachusetts Attempts to Pass Bill making Over 60 Porn Illegal

--on the web

[www.volokh.com]- Yup, 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."

The law is not limited to people who are mentally handicapped and thus unable to consent, or who are photographed against their will by their caretakers (the justification discussed in this story).

The operative provisions cover people over 60 and the disabled whether or not they are incompetent. One provision, relating to people's being "deemed incapable of consenting," would cover only "an elder or a person with a disability adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth," but I don't see how this would stop liability under the other provisions, since consent is no defense under the other provisions in any event. (Plus if they just wanted to bar exploitation of the incompetent, why not simply say "anyone adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth," with no limitation to elders or persons with disabilities?)

Likewise, the law is not limited to hard-core pornography that would constitute unprotected "obscenity." It would apply to any pictures of nudes, so long as the defendant is acting with lascivious intent." Hard to see how this would be constitutional, or why it would make much sense.

The bill text is here; the provisions that would be amended are here and here; and the definitions of "elder" (anyone age 60 or older) and "person with a disability" ("a person with ) are here. If anyone can point me to a version that merges the existing text with the changes, I'd love to link to it.

UPDATE: Note that the law isn't limited to making pornography for commercial purposes (since the child pornography law that it builds on covers noncommercial child pornography, too). That means that if 60-year-old spouses or lovers -- or spouses or lovers of someone who is disabled -- decide to photograph each other naked with "lascivious intent," they would be facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison (inserted text underlined, especially relevant text italicized):

Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability, or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability and with lascivious intent, hires, coerces, solicits or entices, employs, procures, uses, causes, encourages, or knowingly permits such child, elder or person with a disability to pose or be exhibited in a state of nudity, for the purpose of representation or reproduction in any visual material, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years, or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Share this news story with others: digg it del.icio.us hahahahahahahahahaha fark

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 03-30-2009, 03:52 PM

I'm all for it so long as they take their drivers licenses away too...

baddog · 03-30-2009, 03:53 PM

Forced retirement?

camperjohn64 · 03-30-2009, 03:59 PM

Wow...that's fucked up.

tony286 · 03-30-2009, 04:02 PM

thats crazy.

davecummings · 03-30-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Forced retirement?

(Thus far) only In MA if this passes.

I'll still perform in CA where Freeman v. California makes it legal for me to "perform".

The Seduction of Art · 03-30-2009, 04:30 PM

Did somebody get grossed out by a Blue Iris video or something?

davecummings · 03-30-2009, 05:04 PM

Here's my response, as published by XBiz which asked me for comments. The girl in their piece is Juli Ashton. http://www.xbiz.com/news/106543

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

Per the article at http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=33842, headlined by Gene Ross as:

"3/30/2009 10:33 AM PST

The Dave Cummings Act? Massachusetts Attempts to Pass Bill making Over 60 Porn Illegal

--on the web

[www.volokh.com]- Yup, 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."

The law is not limited to people who are mentally handicapped and thus unable to consent, or who are photographed against their will by their caretakers (the justification discussed in this story).

The operative provisions cover people over 60 and the disabled whether or not they are incompetent. One provision, relating to people's being "deemed incapable of consenting," would cover only "an elder or a person with a disability adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth," but I don't see how this would stop liability under the other provisions, since consent is no defense under the other provisions in any event. (Plus if they just wanted to bar exploitation of the incompetent, why not simply say "anyone adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth," with no limitation to elders or persons with disabilities?)

Likewise, the law is not limited to hard-core pornography that would constitute unprotected "obscenity." It would apply to any pictures of nudes, so long as the defendant is acting with lascivious intent." Hard to see how this would be constitutional, or why it would make much sense.

The bill text is here; the provisions that would be amended are here and here; and the definitions of "elder" (anyone age 60 or older) and "person with a disability" ("a person with ) are here. If anyone can point me to a version that merges the existing text with the changes, I'd love to link to it.

UPDATE: Note that the law isn't limited to making pornography for commercial purposes (since the child pornography law that it builds on covers noncommercial child pornography, too). That means that if 60-year-old spouses or lovers -- or spouses or lovers of someone who is disabled -- decide to photograph each other naked with "lascivious intent," they would be facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison (inserted text underlined, especially relevant text italicized):

Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability, or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability and with lascivious intent, hires, coerces, solicits or entices, employs, procures, uses, causes, encourages, or knowingly permits such child, elder or person with a disability to pose or be exhibited in a state of nudity, for the purpose of representation or reproduction in any visual material, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years, or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Share this news story with others: digg it del.icio.us hahahahahahahahahaha fark

Dirty F · 03-30-2009, 05:06 PM

Only in the land of the free!

lazycash · 03-30-2009, 05:10 PM

Oh no, what will happen to www.lemonparty.org ?

seeric · 03-30-2009, 05:14 PM

i got your back dave. i'm sending granny over.
http://www.noob.us/entertainment/bad...a-machine-gun/

AtlantisCash · 03-30-2009, 05:47 PM

just bullshit.

JFK · 03-30-2009, 05:53 PM

we can probably set you up with barely 18 Id Dave

Dave McLovin??

AtlantisCash · 03-30-2009, 06:10 PM

we need more liberals around without a doudt.

Va2k · 03-30-2009, 06:12 PM

I would love to do a 70 or 80 year old so long as they can agree with me porking them!!

collegeboobies · 03-30-2009, 06:54 PM

Haha thats awesome.. i dont wanna see them fuckin anyway

03-30-2009, 03:47 PM	#1
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Unbelieveable!!!! Age Discrimination? Per the article at http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=33842, headlined by Gene Ross as: "3/30/2009 10:33 AM PST The Dave Cummings Act? Massachusetts Attempts to Pass Bill making Over 60 Porn Illegal --on the web [www.volokh.com]- Yup, 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." The law is not limited to people who are mentally handicapped and thus unable to consent, or who are photographed against their will by their caretakers (the justification discussed in this story). The operative provisions cover people over 60 and the disabled whether or not they are incompetent. One provision, relating to people's being "deemed incapable of consenting," would cover only "an elder or a person with a disability adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth," but I don't see how this would stop liability under the other provisions, since consent is no defense under the other provisions in any event. (Plus if they just wanted to bar exploitation of the incompetent, why not simply say "anyone adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth," with no limitation to elders or persons with disabilities?) Likewise, the law is not limited to hard-core pornography that would constitute unprotected "obscenity." It would apply to any pictures of nudes, so long as the defendant is acting with lascivious intent." Hard to see how this would be constitutional, or why it would make much sense. The bill text is here; the provisions that would be amended are here and here; and the definitions of "elder" (anyone age 60 or older) and "person with a disability" ("a person with ) are here. If anyone can point me to a version that merges the existing text with the changes, I'd love to link to it. UPDATE: Note that the law isn't limited to making pornography for commercial purposes (since the child pornography law that it builds on covers noncommercial child pornography, too). That means that if 60-year-old spouses or lovers -- or spouses or lovers of someone who is disabled -- decide to photograph each other naked with "lascivious intent," they would be facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison (inserted text underlined, especially relevant text italicized): Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability, or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability and with lascivious intent, hires, coerces, solicits or entices, employs, procures, uses, causes, encourages, or knowingly permits such child, elder or person with a disability to pose or be exhibited in a state of nudity, for the purpose of representation or reproduction in any visual material, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years, or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Share this news story with others: digg it del.icio.us hahahahahahahahahaha fark __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

03-30-2009, 03:59 PM	#4
camperjohn64 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,531	Wow...that's fucked up. __________________ www.gimmiegirlproductions.com

03-30-2009, 04:30 PM	#7
The Seduction of Art Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 416	Did somebody get grossed out by a Blue Iris video or something? __________________ Custom adult artwork for your business from a veteran artist. Click below or ICQ# 488024725

03-30-2009, 05:10 PM	#10
lazycash Troll Patrol Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Local Socal Posts: 15,214	Oh no, what will happen to www.lemonparty.org ? __________________ "WTF, on google you can find the answer to every question in human history, EXCEPT how to convert cams.. Its crazy..." VenusBlogger

03-30-2009, 05:53 PM	#13
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,374	we can probably set you up with barely 18 Id Dave Dave McLovin?? __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

03-30-2009, 03:52 PM	#2
Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life (felis madjewicus) Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: In Mom & Dad's Basement Posts: 20,368	I'm all for it so long as they take their drivers licenses away too...

03-30-2009, 03:53 PM	#3
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	Forced retirement?

03-30-2009, 04:02 PM	#5
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	thats crazy.

03-30-2009, 05:06 PM	#9
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Only in the land of the free!

03-30-2009, 05:14 PM	#11
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	i got your back dave. i'm sending granny over. http://www.noob.us/entertainment/bad...a-machine-gun/

03-30-2009, 05:47 PM	#12
AtlantisCash Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Istanbul - Turkiye Posts: 3,179	just bullshit.

03-30-2009, 06:10 PM	#14
AtlantisCash Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Istanbul - Turkiye Posts: 3,179	we need more liberals around without a doudt.

03-30-2009, 06:12 PM	#15
Va2k I’m still alive barley. Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Va Posts: 10,060	I would love to do a 70 or 80 year old so long as they can agree with me porking them!! __________________

03-30-2009, 06:54 PM	#16
collegeboobies So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,644	Haha thats awesome.. i dont wanna see them fuckin anyway