New Massachusetts law extends censorship to IM, e-mail, Web

[thundley4]

It has long been illegal in Massachusetts to provide minors with "matter harmful to minors" under the state's "Crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order" law. The law targets obscenity, but only its physical forms, which makes it easier to enforce. When little Johnny steps inside the adult video store, clerks can check his ID before selling him that DVD of industrial sexuality. And anyone trying show hardcore porn to a 13-year old knows exactly what they're doing, and who they're doing it to.

In April, this "harmful to minors" law received a brief update—not more than a couple of paragraphs—but they had profound implications for free expression. The new law extended "harmful to minors" to the Internet. In addition to smutty books, films, pamphlets, pictures, plays, dances, and statues (!), Massachusetts decided that the "matter" which might harm minors should now include:

electronic mail, instant messages, text messages, and any other communication created by means of use of the Internet or wireless network, whether by computer, telephone, or any other device or by any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system.

The law went into effect yesterday, and today it was challenged in court by the ACLU, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and several booksellers. By going digital, the expanded law suddenly moves away from the shop counter and onto the 'Net, where it "threatens Internet communications nationwide and even worldwide."

arstechnica

Does that mean that this site, since it contains the "Shortbus" thread is illegal in MA? Will MA now do like some of the Islamic countries countries and ban sites for the good of their citizens?

[PatriotGame]

Yet Massachusetts teaches same-sex gay butt****ing to six year-old kindergartners.

Things that make you go "bleeeech"!

[DumbAss Tanker]

arstechnica

Does that mean that this site, since it contains the "Shortbus" thread is illegal in MA? Will MA now do like some of the Islamic countries countries and ban sites for the good of their citizens?

Durka durka, Mohammed jihad!

[JohnnyReb]

Yet Massachusetts teaches same-sex gay butt****ing to six year-old kindergartners.

Things that make you go "bleeeech"!

But those are liberals teaching smut to your kids. Can't be letting just anybody teach smut to your kids now can we. It's all for the children.

[Jmartin]

A little bit too intrusive. This law won't make it pass the lower courts. Your run-of-the-mill Porno is one thing but making to where it covers everything that we all use everyday is unconstitutional. Hell how do they suppose they are going to enforce it, with spyware? But hey that would require a warrant and you can't get that without probable cause. 

[formerlurker]

See, this is why I loathe libertarian blogs.   All hype, no substance.

This law was a direct result of the MA SJC ruling in favor of a pedophile who was instant messaging who he thought was a 13 year old girl.  He arranged to meet her to have sex, and was arrested.   

The court found because electronic messaging wasn't included in the language of the obscenity laws the disgusting POS could go free to stalk other children. 

Read:

http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=19660

[MrsSmith]

The law in question:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-31.htm


The addition in question:

striking out, in lines 40 to 43, inclusive, the definition of “Matter” and inserting in place thereof the following definition:-

“Harmful to minors”, matter is harmful to minors if it is obscene or, if taken as a whole, it (1) describes or represents nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, so as to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest of minors; (2) is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors; and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

In which:

“Matter”, any handwritten or printed material, visual representation, live performance or sound recording including but not limited to, books, magazines, motion picture films, pamphlets, phonographic records, pictures, photographs, figures, statues, plays, dances.

includes:

electronic mail, instant messages, text messages, and any other communication created by means of use of the Internet or wireless network, whether by computer, telephone, or any other device or by any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system.

I can see why the ACLU doesn't like it, though.  They have filed briefs before stating that children as young as 12 should have full access to everything their parents want to protect them from.

(yes, I know that is poor grammar.)

[thundley4]

“Harmful to minors”, matter is harmful to minors if it is obscene or, if taken as a whole, it (1) describes or represents nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, so as to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest of minors; (2) is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors; and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

That right there would seem to cover many of the pictures in the shortbus.  That could almost cover any fashion show on TV.

[MrsSmith]

That right there would seem to cover many of the pictures in the shortbus.  That could almost cover any fashion show on TV.

patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county

I don't always follow the shortbus, but can't recall seeing anything in there that would be worse than what Massachusetts adults let their kids see on TV.