Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 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]
davecummings is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 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...
Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 03:53 PM   #3
baddog
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,090
Forced retirement?
baddog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 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
camperjohn64 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 04:02 PM   #5
tony286
lurker
 
tony286's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: atlanta
Posts: 57,021
thats crazy.
tony286 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 04:28 PM   #6
davecummings
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog View Post
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".
__________________
Dave Cummings
www.davecummings.com
www.davecummings.tv
San Diego

Email--- [email protected]
davecummings is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 04:30 PM   #7
The Seduction of Art
Confirmed User
 
The Seduction of Art's Avatar
 
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

The Seduction of Art is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 05:04 PM   #8
davecummings
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,922
http://www.xbiz.com/news/106543

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 View Post
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]
davecummings is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 05:06 PM   #9
Dirty F
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
Dirty F's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,204
Only in the land of the free!
Dirty F is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 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
lazycash is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 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/
seeric is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 05:47 PM   #12
AtlantisCash
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Istanbul - Turkiye
Posts: 3,169
just bullshit.
AtlantisCash is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 05:53 PM   #13
JFK
FUBAR the ORIGINATOR
 
JFK's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FUBARLAND
Posts: 67,382
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
JFK is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 06:10 PM   #14
AtlantisCash
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Istanbul - Turkiye
Posts: 3,169
we need more liberals around without a doudt.
AtlantisCash is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2009, 06:12 PM   #15
Va2k
I’m still alive barley.
 
Va2k's Avatar
 
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!!
__________________
Va2k is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 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
collegeboobies is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.