[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends View]
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009
| Time | Event |
| 10:48a | Знаете первый признак лучевой болезни? Хочется спать, жрать, и кажется, что мало платят. http://lib.rus.ec/b/76436/read |
| 12:21p | |
| 12:45p | 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. [...] 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. [...] 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 committing a crime (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." http://volokh.com/posts/1238285248.shtm via ![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/userinfo-lj.gif) lqp@ljособенно трогательно - permits. |
| 12:59p | |
| 1:09p | |
| 6:22p | внезапный дедлайн ... і вже дедлайн крадеться з своєю усмiшкою хижою |
| 10:07p | |
| 11:41p | http://arbat.livejournal.com/154012.html?t deeplake@lj : А как же недавний казус в Германии? После того, как там проституцию стали полагать одной из профессий, предполагающей в том числе и пенсионное обеспечение, и включили в опции предложений работы агентств, ряд вполне добропорядочных немок, на тот момент времени бывших безработными, получили извещение о необходимости найма в публичные дома. Под угрозой утери соцпакета в случае отказа. :)arbat@lj : Да, это была хорошая история :-) Только они не получали извещения, просто они вдруг сообразили, что такое, в принципе возможно - владельцы публичных домов вправе затребовать от бюро по трудоустройству, чтобы они направили к ним безработных женщин.Интересно, как они из нее выпутывались? trurle@lj : Никак, это была журналисткая фантазия. У labas@lj было расследование.arbat@lj : Однако, обратили ли Вы внимание, что все источники сообщают, что, мол, прецедента не было, хотя подтверждают, что, принципиально, по закону - такая ситуация возможна? Иначе говоря, все пока что зависит от добровой воли содержателей борделей, которые не настаивают.Но идея хорошая :) Story : http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/bro |
| << Previous Day |
2009/04/07 [Calendar] |
Next Day >> |