Consenting adults over 60 who have sex on camera need to be protected from themselves, believes Kathi-Anne Reinstein, a Democrat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Reinstein proposes that "elder porn" (and porn involving people who have disabilities) be treated the same as child porn, because evidently, the moment you turn 60, you lose your mental capacity to make your own sexual decisions. Law professor and First-Amendment attorney Marc Randazza pwns Reinstein, no contest:
I'm not lamenting the fact that this legislation might prevent my mom and dad from becoming the next internet porn sensation. I do think that I would need to gouge my eyes out with a fork if that ever happened. But Reinstein's law is not limited to commercial porn. In fact, it doesn't have to be porn at all — since I'd venture to guess that the elderly women who posed nude for this calendar don't consider it to be "pornographic" or "perverted."
The worst part is that Rep. Reinstein's law equates nude photos of the elderly or disabled with child pornography: You can't make it for any reason whatsoever, not even for private enjoyment, no exceptions, no nothing. ... [T]here is no exception for personal use, no exception for someone who is clearly mentally capable of making a decision for themselves, nor an exception for someone who truly wants to appear in a state of undress for a lascivious purpose.
But surely police and prosecutors will use, you know, discretion in the application of the law? Let's not get silly, Randazza says.
When it comes to dumb sex laws, the last person I'm going to trust to apply it intelligently is a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor. Not even in my beloved Commonwealth. Even noble and intelligent legislation becomes an unpredictable monster in the hands of fools who refuse to think while enforcing it.
And he has examples to back up the sentiment. Read the whole thing.




Recent Comments