Posted on 04/15/2008 11:21:40 AM PDT by mondoreb
New Bill in Maine Makes “Visual Sexual Aggression” a Crime
It might be 2008 in the rest of the USA, but in Maine, it’s 1984.
A new bill in the Pine Tree State would make it a crime to peer at children in public. It’s been asserted that some legislators can justify making any action a crime–as long as they add the magic words “for the children” to the mix.
This Maine bill adds proof to that assertion.
State Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York, is the head cheerleader for a bill only a fan of police state actions could love.
Define “peer,” please. Is that how it reads in the bill?
I’ll take the last question for “What are ways they’ll implant sound recorders and ticket writters in our clothes for 1000 Alex.”
We are very very close to slipping over the edge.
its amazing what we are becoming, we will pass lawa like this that leave alot open to interpretation but, yesterday i am waiting for traffic to pass to make a right on red when the car behing me lays on the horn. once the lane was clear i safely make the right on red and the guy in the car comes up beside me and tries to run me off the road. i tried to report it to the state police and local sheriffs dept and was told by both that under florida law if they do not see it thier is nothing they can do about it. so i guess we wait until this person kills someone....
It’s not the end of civilization, but you can see it from here.
slipped...??...i think we have already jumped.....
It doesn't. Just like smoking it will extend into the absurd. No Smoking laws started with airplanes and elevators. Common sense, right? What do we have now? City wide bans, bans even in outdoor areas, not at work, bans from smoking in your own home, basically, total lunacy.
It is mind boggling where this "visual aggression" BS will go.
ping
Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.
Does the legislation mean that if you are just sitting somewhere and a child comes along, and you just look askance at that child, you could get busted? Even if you’re with your own child of a similar age?
No way this is enacted. It’s frivolous and unenforceable.
Dhimmocrat/Liberals know this instinctively; they want to be judged on their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel-good intentions; nothing more. It doesn't matter whether the law is God-awful dumb.
Frightening. And the American people are letting it happen. By the time we are at a point where just about everyone has lost our freedom it will be too late.
So in Maine even people with their own children in the park who happen to glance at other children will be arrested? Perhaps parks and other gathering places will now be abandoned as people are afraid the thought crime police will come after them.
next while you are sleeping the dream police will enter your minds....(que music)
Unfortunately your words will fall on deaf ears, even on FR.
I sure hope not. I'd hate to end up my life in the woods somewhere running from the thought police. But I would if it came to that. I guess I'm old-fashioned that way.
In the movie, “Vanilla Sky”, the state had a police crime squad which busted into people’s home and prevented “pre-crime”: crime that hadn’t happened yet, but which was foreseen by a committee of mutants who had the power to see into the future.
Wasn't Vanilla Sky....'twas Minority Report.
When my niece was 13......she looked 20. Thousands of men would be felons!!!
Sadly I guess we are the minority.
I wonder how many “moderate” for-the-children type voters think this kind of legislation is just fine—until maybe one of them is picked up for just innocently looking in the wrong direction.
We’ve been the minority for awhile. I got out of my “moderate” stage years ago but too many people are just stupid.
“I wonder how many “moderate” for-the-children type voters think this kind of legislation is just fine—until maybe one of them is picked up for just innocently looking in the wrong direction.”
How many times have you been lost in thought and just stared off in a particular direction? You know, staring, but not seeing? When I’m problem solving I’ve been known to do that. I guess if I’m in a park in Maine, and do that, I better be careful I don’t have a child in my field of view.
I’ve all but given up. The younger generation has been, in general, taught in liberal schools. They are very accepting of infringements on their freedom in the name of the common good. I’m 50, and hope that I don’t live long enough to see the United States of America fully morph into Socialist States of Amerika. (We are darn close, I’ll tell you that).
“Blocks 99% of UV rays and 100% of “Visual Sexual Aggression” class D felonies.”
Then they’d arrest you if your head was pointed in the wrong direction and you could have been looking at a child.
Geez, they’ve made it so you don’t dare hug or touch a child that isn’t your own, now you can’t look at them. Must do wonders for kids.
Wait till those 15 year olds who look like they are 23 are made up and dressed up to look older, and sent by cops to bars to meet their quota!
I could also imagine a couple of rascally lasses deciding to see if they could get a guy arrested for fun.
All of them. The pavlovian response regarding anything fo-de-chirins is mind boggling.
But I understand the motivation. I was at the playground one warm summer day with my kids when a single middle age guy walked up with a camera and started taking pictures of the kids, especially the boys. I told my kids to stay away and he moved on when he realized I had him made. I would definitely be ticked by one of those creeps hanging around a restroom my kids were using.
So the next time I’m in maine and there’s a kid screaming his or her head off in the theater and I turn around to glare, the mom could call the cops and I could be arrested, all because I dared to look at her brat. This law gives bad parents a tool to abuse those who don’t appreciate their disregard for other people.
This would be thrown out as unconstitutionally vague by the first appellate court that looked at it.
This will employ a lot of lawyers.
This year I’m doing a daily photo blog where I take and post at least one picture every day of the year (FR mail me if you’d like the URL). Last week when I left work I noticed a young girl doing flips on a trampoline, maybe 10 or so years old. I thought that would make a neat photo.
So, I went up to the porch of the house and asked the man there (who it turned out to be her father) if he minded if I took a picture of his daughter. After a quick explanation of who I was it was not much to my surprise that he said he’d rather I didn’t.
I didn’t think much of it then but it started bothering me the more I thought that it has come to this. It is just assumed that I am up to no good when I’m a male adult and children are involved. Really is a shame... (and I bet I would’ve got some great pictures, too!)
Argghh!
It absolutely was “Minority Report”....the things your brain does when under time pressure...I apologize to all Tom Cruise movie enthusiasts!
oh well...”to err is human...”
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Looks like the reporter for the original story only read the title of the bill and did not read the text of the bill.
Here's a link to the text of the bill:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/billpdfs/LD207901.pdf
And here's the text of the bill:
An Act To Strengthen the Crime of Visual Sexual Aggression against a ChildBe it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 17-A MRSA §256, sub-§1, ¶A, as amended by PL 2005, c. 655, §1, is further amended to read:
A. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, in a public or private place, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 14 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime;Sec. 2. 17-A MRSA §256, sub-§1, ¶B, as amended by PL 2005, c. 655, §1, is further amended to read:
B. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, in a public or private place, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 12 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime;SUMMARY
This bill amends the crime of visual sexual aggression against a child to clarify that the crime applies when the exposure occurs in either a public or private place.
The bill has to do with exposing your own genitals or causing the genitals of the minor to be exposed in a public or private place for the purposes of sexual gratification.
That reporter needs to go back and take Journalism 101.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.”
Quote by: Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.