Visual Sexual Aggression -- Not So Much
A while back I linked to a scary news story about a Maine bill that would punish people for staring at kids or teens. But it turns out that the story isn't true.
At least, that's what Travis Kennedy, Communications Director for Maine Rep. Dawn Hill just told me on the phone. Despite what the news story reported, Kennedy says that the bill never punished mere staring or leering -- the defendant has to be touching or exposing himself, or doing something like looking over a bathroom stall wall. And he said that the burden of proof remains on the state for all elements -- there's no crime just because someone is staring or looking at you.
He says that the bill in question just made a minor change in the pre-existing law to make clear that this could be in a private or a public place. He also said that Rep. Hill has been getting a lot of complaints over this, and is upset that the story is false. So there you are -- things aren't quite as insane out there as we'd feared.
At least, that's what Travis Kennedy, Communications Director for Maine Rep. Dawn Hill just told me on the phone. Despite what the news story reported, Kennedy says that the bill never punished mere staring or leering -- the defendant has to be touching or exposing himself, or doing something like looking over a bathroom stall wall. And he said that the burden of proof remains on the state for all elements -- there's no crime just because someone is staring or looking at you.
He says that the bill in question just made a minor change in the pre-existing law to make clear that this could be in a private or a public place. He also said that Rep. Hill has been getting a lot of complaints over this, and is upset that the story is false. So there you are -- things aren't quite as insane out there as we'd feared.
posted by Helen at 2:19 PM
49 Comments:
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Yeah...Right....
"At least, that's what Travis Kennedy, Communications Director for Maine Rep. Dawn Hill just told me on the phone. Despite what the news story reported, Kennedy says that the bill never punished mere staring or leering -- the defendant has to be touching or exposing himself, or doing something like looking over a bathroom stall wall." -- Dr. Helen
I don't know Travis. However, I do know (1) what I read and (2) that politicians, especially their staffs, seem to misrepresent things quite a bit.
If you doubt the latter, check out hubby's observation of Senator Obama vis-a-vis 2d Amendment issues.
With regards to the former, I've yet to see anywhere, in print, what Travis claims....that the person has to be touching the child, exposing themselves or peering over restroom stall walls.
Where is the text of the proposed bill?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Bad law is more likely to be supplemented than repealed. -- Oaks's Laws]
P.S. Furthermore, I see it as a simple step from this form of law to one that addresses a similar issue with adult women.
P.P.S. Here's the crucial line in the original article....
"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." -- http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060343/-1/NEWS01
I do not see in there where it is anything more than just "viewing children". No touching. No exposing. No peeping. Just "viewing". As in 'looking' at them.
Or, maybe they've been taking lessons in English from Mr. Bill "how you define IS" Clinton.
They can still gitcha on a "Prowling" charge.
If I see a Black man shuffling aimlessly down the sidewalk of an all-white neighborhood, I'm calling 911.
If I see a black man on the sidewalk of an all-white neighborhood staring, he's going to be lynched.
If I see a black woman on the sidewalk of an all-white neighborhood, she's just the maid and I ain't got no problem with it.
Love,
Maxine
Chuck,
What I was told by Mr. Kennedy is that the original article from seacoastonline was incorrect, that the person has to be more than viewing, leering etc.--he gave an example that the person had to follow a child into a bathroom, for example, and be touching himself. I am just relaying the information. I directly asked if peering, leering or just plain looking creepy would qualify and he said "no." I do agree that even if a person were standing looking at kids over a bathroom stall--that to classify this in as a Class C or D felony would be extreme.
C'mon people. They makes these Internets for a reason.
Proposed and enacted laws are online now!
Even this one.
I believe this is the bill in question. The summary says:
This amendment replaces the bill. The amendment removes the requirement that visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person occur in a private place to be a crime. Instead, the amendment specifies that a person who, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person is guilty of visual sexual aggression regardless of where the surveillance occurs. Surveillance may occur either in a public or private place.
It looks like the news reports are keying off the phrase "visual aggression" when this looks to be your standard peeping-tom type legislation updated to include public places.
maxine --
You really should slap a /sarcasm on that for the hordes that drop by and might not know those aren't really your views.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shannon Love,
The communications director indicated to me that these laws are on the books in many states (not saying this makes it right) but that indeed, it was updated to include public places and not just private. Perhaps the law is confusing to people and needs more clarification.
Are you look'n at me?
...Are you look'n at me?
Very truly yours,
Travis Bickle, Jr.
Thank you so much for clarifying this!
As I said in my original story, journalists tend to be really bad in their explanations of statutes. I know because I have been sucked in before by inaccurate news stories only to find that the bill or statute doesn't at all say what the newspaper article represented. Now I always look up the statute itself but it took being hosed a couple of times to learn that lesson.
That having been said, the Maine legislature was foolish to name the statute "visual sexual aggression." That is a title that is just begging to be misunderstood. Why not just call it "indecent exposure?" Also, as a practicing lawyer, I think the clarification that it is a crime whether in public or private is ridiculously unnecessary.
Finally, I should note that the indecent exposure in Maine (as in surely ever other state) has to be "for the purpose of sexual gratification" in order to be considered criminal.
I should have said: "As I said in my comment to the original post . . . "
Whew* What a relief- as a man now I can get back to just living in the regular old everyday fear of being falsely accused of DV or rape or child molestation by a hysterical/emotionally unbalanced/psycho female/child, and hope I get another 6 months until a new psychotic law is passed that makes it illegal for me to walk outside.
What did the man say who jumped out of 100 story buiding 50 stories down? So far so good. God bless America, U.S. of F. United States of Fraud. (Run by women).
But whats more worrying that once this idea has been spoken, the function creep law will come into effect. The cynic in me, says they tried to do it as it said in the news.. but they saw the outcry.
TO: Dr. Helen
RE: I Hear Ya
[Note: Hope this doesn't duplicate what I said a little while back, but that comment hasn't shown up for several minutes.....]
"What I was told by Mr. Kennedy is that the original article from seacoastonline was incorrect...." -- Dr. Helen
But please remember what I said, item #2, in my original comment. I don't trust politicians. Let alone their staffs.
I've seen/heard them mis-represent facts for 24+ years now, in various venues; volunteer lobbyist, commissioner, etc., etc., etc.
Heck. Just watch Obama on the good reverend Wright or his views on Amendment 2.
My point is that I'd like to see the text of the proposed legislation.
Maybe Mr. Kennedy would be kind enough to provide that for us all....PDF format, please.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Trust. But verify. Especially with politicians.]
Chuck(le) makes a good point, but so do commenters who talk about how lazy reporters are when they pick up stories like these.
Reminds me of an instance many years ago when I was working in communications office for a government agency and some theft incidents led us to send around, as a reminder, some agency policy statements about employee work areas. Well, no one had read the policy in years, so they all purported to be shocked to read that the employer could search employees' workspaces under certain circumstances. Employees called the local newspaper (in retaliation, I suppose) and we had to handle a reporter's inquiries about this "shocking" "new" policy. Well, it was neither "new" nor "shocking," and we were able to get this across to the reporter. Had she not called, however, she would have run with a story that sounded like our agency was suddenly and uninvited invading employee privacy.
The laziness displayed by the reporter in these articles, as well as the comm director's comments in response, ring true to me.
TO: k
RE: Good Point....
"The laziness displayed by the reporter in these articles, as well as the comm director's comments in response, ring true to me." -- k
....about reporters.
However, and this would be an interesting indicator as to the veracity of Mr. Kennedy, newspapers are somewhat required to print 'corrections' if they get things wrong.
However, I still suspect that seeing the actual verbiage of the proposed Bill would clarify the probability of misunderstandings/misrepresentations.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Where I've been, there is no such thing as privacy of employees. Except in the stalls of restrooms.
Chuck, read the thread. Several links to the legislation have been posted.
TO: JohnAnnArbor
RE: Yeah?
"Chuck, read the thread. Several links to the legislation have been posted." -- JohnAnnArbor
What thread? Where?
The only url I see in this thread is the one I provided to the original article.
Could you provide one?
Thanks,
Chuck(le)
[This site has been moved. We'd tell you where, but then we'd. have to delete you. - Haiku Error Msg]
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/billtexts/ld207901.asp
TO: Sloan
RE: URL
Thanks.
TO: All
RE: The Ins & Outs of Legislation
"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" -- Main Legislature Web Site; as provided by Sloan
This does seem to clarify the business about exposure and such. However, does this mean that Maine does not have laws on its books about public indecency? Or is there something else going on here? Something like...
....the proposed bill was ORIGINALLY of the sort described in the newspapers, but has been AMENDED by the stuff I found at the URL provided by Sloan?
It could be that both the press and the staff flack were right. The press being correct in the initial report and then, because of the out-cry, the Bill was amended to add the verbiage about exposure.
I'd like to see the ENTIRE text of the proposed bill as well as the time-line of amendments. Because what is at that URL is not what anyone with any experience following legislation would call a complete Bill.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What they are telling you may be important. What they are NOT telling you could be vital. -- CBPelto]
P.S. As evidence to support my theory of the 'reporting' of this Bill, from inception to seeing the amendments, I offer this....
The original article was ALL about some form of latter-day Aqualung leering at children.
It had NOTHING to do with indecent exposure. And, I suspect that the Great State of Maine already had some statutes on their books about that and/or lewd behavior.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the material provided at the URL that addresses the nature of the initial report, leering at children.
What happened to that part of this measure?
That's why I ask to see the full text of the measure and the timeline it's progress through the Maine Legislature, as well as all amendments and when they were submitted/adopted.
This provides more context to the bill and amendments. Click around the link posted by Sloan to find out more info.
From reading the PDF, the original report was grossly inaccurate about what behavior was being criminalized. The proposed language clearly states that the observation must be of specific *uncovered* portions of the body. The comment that it requires exposure by the observer is inaccurate. It includes but isn't limited to indecent exposure by the observer. Another major edit in the bill removed the requirement that the observer be in a private place. I think this change generated the newspaper article. However, stating that someone loitering outside but otherwise unable to see inside a public restroom could be prosecuted under the law is a stretch.
TO: Der Hahn
RE: Clicking Around
"Click around the link posted by Sloan to find out more info." -- Der Hahn
Been there. Done that. The only thing I see are the amendments.
It's as if the original bill, the thing that was amended by paras A and B has become part of the 'disappeared'.
Do YOU have the original Bill's text? All I've found is amendments to said Bill.
"From reading the PDF, the original report was grossly inaccurate about what behavior was being criminalized." -- Der Hahn
But WHERE is the 'original' verbiage of the Bill?
Until you and/or I see that we cannot be certain.
As I said, clicking around has not uncovered what the text of that Bill was before it was amended.
If you have the original text, I'd like to see it. As I've not found it on the Maine Legislature's web-site.
The proposed language clearly states that the observation must be of specific *uncovered* portions of the body. The comment that it requires exposure by the observer is inaccurate." -- It includes but isn't limited to indecent exposure by the observer. Another major edit in the bill removed the requirement that the observer be in a private place." -- Der Hahn
That's all part of the amendments. Where's the original text?
"I think this change generated the newspaper article. However, stating that someone loitering outside but otherwise unable to see inside a public restroom could be prosecuted under the law is a stretch." -- Der Hahn
What you think is all well and good. But what the Bill originally said would answer all our questions. Don't you think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. HERE'S an interesting 'indicator'....
"Amend the bill by striking out everything after the enacting clause and before the summary and inserting the following:
....The various and sundry amendments....
SUMMARAY
This amendment replaces the bill. The amendment removes the requirement that visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person occur in a private place to be a crime." -- http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/billtexts/LD207902.asp
Found this in the Filing Number column in link H-690.
Looks like everything in the original Bill was deleted and replaced by the amendments.
But the text of the original Bill cannot be found.
As I stated earlier, the implication is Maine has no laws on its books about indecent exposure or invasion of privacy.
So the amendment(s) (1) strike the entire Bill and (2) remove the requirement of observation of "...uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person occur in a private place to be a crime."
Furthermore, we have this bit of machination....
"2. As used in this section, "private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance, including, but not limited to, changing or dressing rooms, bathrooms and similar places , but excluding a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.’"
However, which cannot be displayed in this venue because it will not allow for 'strike through', the words but excluding a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.’ are struck through on the page I'm looking at.
Why is that?
Does this mean that if someone exposes their derriere in a public place, to look at it is 'Visual Sexual Aggression'?
Is this REALLY an effort to shut down all the strip-joints in Maine?
After all, men in such public places would obviously see an uncovered breast. And, accordingly would be looking at it, with or without the aid of "mechanical or electronic equipment".
Using the wording posted earlier as 'the amendment', one can see - from reading ONLY the items in BOLD - how some might try to interpret this in (perhaps) unintended ways. And yes, I guess some zealous enforcer of the laws COULD try to apply it to Strip Clubs.
"This amendment replaces the bill. The amendment removes the requirement that visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person occur in a private place to be a crime. Instead, the amendment specifies that a person who, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person is guilty of visual sexual aggression regardless of where the surveillance occurs. Surveillance may occur either in a public or private place."
Ok, I don't know which links above have contained what, because I haven't taken the time to go through them all, but on the Maine Legislature site, the Bill reads that it was nothing BUT an amendment to an EXISTING statute. Since the page contains the date that the document was prepared, it is clear that it has not been modified since January.
Likewise, the Amendment, which has been pointed out as essentially replacing the entire Bill, was prepared in February.
Now, you can claim that the date may not include revision dates, and that it could have been changed since then, but if that were possible, it would just open up too many ways for defense lawyers to poke holes in any prosecution case for any crime where the Bill was placed on the Legislature site prior to passing. There is a high likelihood that any document revisions would require that the date be for the most recent change.
Also, note that some of the text is struck out, indicating that changes are being reflected in the text itself, and not being just replaced. That would indicate that changes aren't being made transparently.
However, there is one portion of the Amendment text that bothers me. With the location caluses struck out, it looks like it would be possible to be interpreted in such a way as to include looking at younger girls with skimpy bathing suits at a public pool.
thats the scary part, of function creep..
TO: Wayne
RE: The Bill
"Ok, I don't know which links above have contained what, because I haven't taken the time to go through them all, but on the Maine Legislature site, the Bill reads that it was nothing BUT an amendment to an EXISTING statute." -- Wayne
From whence do you 'assume' that there is an existing statute?
I read it that the amendments modified the Bill. Not an existing statute. Please show us the existing statute.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I've been doing this business of following legislation and looking deep into the statutes of my state for some time.
I've learned to be 'suspicious' of various forms of verbiage. This is one that tweaks my 'susupicion'.
[No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.]
TO: venting steam
RE: The Amendments
"Using the wording posted earlier as 'the amendment', one can see - from reading ONLY the items in BOLD - how some might try to interpret this in (perhaps) unintended ways." -- venting steam
Sure. BUT....
....WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL BILL'S TEXT?
"And yes, I guess some zealous enforcer of the laws COULD try to apply it to Strip Clubs." -- venting steam
And I'm sure some aspiring lawyer will try it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Lawyer, n., One skilled at twisting the law. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (paraphrased and updated)]
Boy, I really wish a real lawyer would have come into this comment thread, so that a person with some experience searching through this kind of stuff could have done it, because this really made my head ache, but here you go:
Title 17-A, §256 is the existing statute for Visual Sexual Aggression. The only changes that the Bill make to that statute are to the original requirement that the observation take place in a Private Place. This would be why it is titled, "An Act To Strengthen the Crime of Visual Sexual Aggression against a Child."
It also modifies the definition of Title 17-A §511. Violation of privacy, removing the limitation of not applying to public or semipublic places.
Also, here is a Bill that contains a prior amendment to the statute, from the 120th legislative session, in 2005.
Heh. Reading the 2005 Bill, it looks like they tried to up the age of the victim to 18. Apparently, that one didn't pass.
Dr. Helen-
Investigating something using a Communications Director (i.e. Souless Spin Doctor) is just plain lazy. I believe that guy knowingly misled you (which in my world constitutes a lie). It is true that the ORIGINAL bill did not include "viewing". However, while in the legislature the bill was amended to put "viewing" back in. I think "viewing" in the original so the ball could get rolling and to shield the full intentions of the bill from the public in the early stages. Your article is dated April 18, the bill was amended in February, that Communications Director knew better. Here's the link to the bill http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280027586&LD=2079&Type=1&SessionID=7 Go to that link and then click on "H-690" to see the amended version.
TO: Wayne
RE: References
I greatly appreciate your diligence in looking into the matter of the Maine State Statute about "Visual Sexual Aggression Against Children".
It provides necessary background information relating to the discussion of what is going on in the current session.
RE: Muddling Through Legislative Mucking About
"Boy, I really wish a real lawyer would have come into this comment thread, so that a person with some experience searching through this kind of stuff could have done it, because this really made my head ache..." -- Wayne
I know how your feel.
Where I live, I get the distinct impression that the people who are responsible for making this information available are either (1) total idiots or (2) worse....deliberating making things difficult for the average 'computer-literate' Joe to find out what the legislature is doing. It could well be BOTH, as the former would certainly compliment the latter.
RE: This Years Installment
Unfortunately, the excellent information you located does not seem to have the text of the original Bill that caused all this commotion.
And therein is an 'indicator' of what I mentioned in RE #2 (immediately above).
Thanks for your diligent efforts. Please, have a few aspirin and a bourbon to ease the mental anguish.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Where I live, you have to go to five different places/links on the State Assembly's official web-site to determine what is going on with an action on a given piece of legislation. And that includes tracking it through committees, readings, even how a given legislator voted on it in each of those phases.
I am convinced that it is deliberate obfuscation in order to keep US ignorant.
[Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.]
TO: Wayne
RE: ERRATA
When I said, "....the excellent information you located does not seem to have the text of the original Bill that caused all this commotion," in the previous comment, I meant the original verbiage of THIS years Bill. Not the original 2005 legislation that brought this criminal code statute into being.
RE: The Removal of Public & Semi-Public Areas Exclusions
Again, I find this proposal 'odd', as I've stated (above).
Regards,
Chuck(le)
The original bill is very brief and can be found using the search function on the Maine State Legistlature website. I don't think it will do anybody any good as it is roughly identical (except for adding public places) to the new, amended version. Shannon Love said "It looks like the news reports are keying off the phrase "visual aggression" when this looks to be your standard peeping-tom type legislation updated to include public places.
". I think that is wrong. The standard of viewing in public places, even if it ony concerns exposed buttocks, breasts, genitals, etc... is ripe for corruption and abuse. What if a teenage girl is flashing or changing? What about mothers changing diapers? What about just flat out false accusations? This is a horrible, horrible law and that Communications Director is spinning like Eli Whitney. Dr. Helen, you really should stop referring to your conversation with the Communications Director. Maybe you are just too nice a person and too trusting. He has an agenda and gets paid to do "damage control". Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post Dr. Helen, the original verbage of the bill did not cover "viewing". However, it is likely that was a tactical measure to keep the bill on the down-low until it started moving through the legislature. The final amended bill, sure enough, covers "viewing".
TO: averagejoesgym
RE: Really?
"The original bill is very brief and can be found using the search function on the Maine State Legistlature website." -- averagejoesgym
I've spent a good amount of time looking for the original text of the Bill submitted this session and have yet to find it.
Could you please share the URL?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Okay, I would like to assist those needing links to the exact verbage of the relevant documents:
1) The law as it has been since 1989, Maine Statute under Title 17-A, Part 2, Chapter 11. Here is the link:
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec256.html
2) The original bill, LD 2079, submitted by Rep. Dawn Hill in January 2008. Note there are two steps to reaching this. First, go to this link:
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280027586&LD=2079&Type=1&SessionID=7
Then,click in the upper center on "Bill Text".
3)The final version of LD 2079, finalized in February 2008, that will replace the 1989 statute. Note there are two steps to reaching this. First, go to this link:
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280027586&LD=2079&Type=1&SessionID=7
Then, click on "H-690" at the lower left.
TO: averagejoegym
RE: A Matter of....
....(1) semantics and (2) different procedures?
Interesting.
Okay. I think I'm catching on here.
You're saying that the original verbiage of the 2008 session's Bill is to AMEND the existing legislation.
That the underscored verbiage at the url-cum-link is the proposed amendment, as in item A at the url-cum-link you provided/described.
I was reading differently, as when I look at my State Assembly's web-site to see what's going on, things are a tad different. That was throwing me. I apologize for not catching on to this interpretation.
RE: Closing the 'Loop' — The Press Report
So. If the press was indeed going overboard, have they printed a retraction/correction to the original story?
It would be good to see that loose end tied up like Mr. Quest was found in Central Park.
RE: The Addition of "Public" Place
I'm still intrigued by this addition.
RE: Is There No [In]Decency???!?!
I have to wonder why the people of the Great State of Maine couch their indecency laws in this manner.
Did I see an item in the news about how some town in New England was considering passing ordinances against public nudity, a few months ago?
Was that Maine?
Wish I'd captured the news item. If Maine allows public nudity, this would explain the Visual Sexual Aggression Against a Child law. Adults can go nude as long as they are not trying to alarm/shock/arouse a child.
Interest.....
Thanks for the extra effort on my behalf.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It's a strange, strange world;
We live in;
Master Jack. -- Some 70s song]
For God's sake Chuck Pelto, I don't think my communications skills are that poor and you are obviously intelligent looking at your post. I think you read through too fast.
Below I will put each of 3 facts followed by my thoughts.
FACT 1: Maine enacted a law in 1989 which made it illegal to EXPOSE your privates to or VIEW the buttocks, genitals, breast of girls in a PRIVATE PLACE.
MY THOUGHTS ON FACT 1: It was subject to corruption/misunderstanding, but at least in only covered private spaces.
FACT 2: In Januray 2008, Rep. Dawn Hill put forth a bill, LD2079. The verbage of this original version of the bill added PUBLIC SPACES but only in the case of exposing your privates to a girl.
MY THOUGHTS ON FACT 2: I feel that FACT 2 was intentionally watered down upon submission with the intent to make alterations once it started moving through the legislature. I believe it was watered-down to help "grease the skids" and to disguise it's full intent so it would not raise eyebrows early on.
FACT 3: As it passed through the Maine Legislature, changes were made in LD 2079 which now made VIEWING a girl's buttocks, breasts, genitals, in a PUBLIC SPACE illegal. LD 2079 was passed into law in February 2005.
MY THOUGHTS ON FACT 3: Fact 3 means that, in the end, the new law has replaced the 1989 law in its entirety by adding PUBLIC SPACES to both VIEWING AND EXPOSING.
FINAL THOUGHTS: As I have stated in previous posts, this is a horrible, horrible law. What if a young girl exposes herself on her own (changing, flashing, doesn't notice you, etc...)? What if a mom changes her kids diaper and you see it? What if a woman or child just wants to be spiteful? This law is such a travesty because it is essentially anti-adult male, will cause undue stress and paranoia among adult males, tramples upon due process, makes one guilty until proven innocent, and, in most cases, go on the word of one against the other. If anyone on here does not know, that is how domestic violence laws started. Now, domestic violence laws and policies were enacted with the same misleading intentions. Now, domestic violence law has degenerated into the man being arrested despite no evidence or even if evidence suggests the woman assaulted him. Men, let's stand up and be counted; things are getting out of control. Fair-minded women, please help.
Crap, under my last post, in the section labeled "FACT 3" I made an important typo. The last part should read, "LD 2079 was passed into law in February 2008." Again, the newest law just enacted in Maine was passed in 2008, not 2005. Sorry for the big mistake.
averagejoesgym - I think Chuck Pelto was agreeing that he understood what we were getting at in his last post, that the Bill was merely an Amendment to the existing VSA Statute, but saying he had been confused by the fact that the legislature site for his own state is very different in their record-keeping methods.
And I agree that this is a very dangerously worded law.
He also said that Rep. Hill has been getting a lot of complaints over this, and is upset that the story is false.
Well I'm glad it was only a misunderstanding and hopefully this response convinces her not to try anything similar in the future.
Chuck: Is this REALLY an effort to shut down all the strip-joints in Maine?
No, because it is about minors.
TO: All
RE: Okay....
I may have read something too fast. My apologies for misunderstanding.
RE: Is This Good Law?
I have serious doubts about it as the language—as I've indicated before—is rather vague.
RE: The Press
Did they mis-report? Could be. But I've yet to see anyone show me a retraction/correction.
I take this as a possible indicator that maybe they didn't misreport on the matter.
RE: Could This Affect a Strip-Joint
Perhaps, but as serket points out, it's supposed to be about 'minors'.
On the other hand, averagejoesgym has an excellent point about diaper changes or deliberate acts by 'girls gone wild'.
RE: The Title
As I've implied earlier, it seems to me that Maine ought to have laws on the books about (1) indecent exposure and (2) invasions of privacy that would cover adults as well as minors.
I know that where I live WE do have such laws.
Indeed, someone threatened me with arrest for recording a board of directors meeting of an organization I belong to claiming "invasion of privacy". As I was not fully cognizant of the rules regarding that. I stopped recording. When I had learned better, I laughed in his face about the idea that he or any other member of the audience or the BoD would display their genitalia or certain—usually concealed—secondary sexual traits in a public venue.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
免費視訊聊天,辣妹視訊,視訊交友網,美女視訊,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,成人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,情色視訊,情人視訊網,視訊美女,一葉情貼圖片區,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊,ut聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,影音視訊聊天室
威而柔,自慰套,自慰套,SM,充氣娃娃,充氣娃娃,潤滑液,飛機杯,按摩棒,跳蛋,性感睡衣,威而柔,自慰套,自慰套,SM,充氣娃娃,充氣娃娃,潤滑液,飛機杯,按摩棒,跳蛋,性感睡衣
情惑用品性易購,情侶歡愉用品
色情遊戲,寄情築園小遊戲,情色文學,一葉情貼圖片區,情惑用品性易購,情人視訊網,辣妹視訊,情色交友,成人論壇,情色論壇,愛情公寓,情色,舊情人,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,色情小說,做愛,做愛影片,性愛
情惑用品性易購,aio交友愛情館,一葉情貼圖片區,情趣用品,情侶歡愉用品
辣妹視訊,美女視訊,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊美女,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友90739,免費視訊聊天室,成人聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友aooyy,哈啦聊天室,辣妺視訊
A片,色情A片,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊美女34c,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情侶歡愉用品
網頁設計,徵信社
網路美女火辣視訊秀網路美女火辣視訊秀網路美女火辣視訊秀網路美女火辣視訊秀網路美女火辣視訊秀網路美女火辣視訊秀網路美女火辣視訊秀做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室做愛自拍影音聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室視訊美女聊天室176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀176影音視訊live秀love104美女影音live秀love104美女影音live秀love104美女影音live秀love104美女影音live秀love104美女影音live秀love104美女影音live秀aa片免費看微風論壇080哈啦聊天室6k聊天室成人聊天室上班族捷克論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室520視訊聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 a片a片影片免費情色影片免費a片觀看小弟第貼影片區免費av影片免費h影片試看 H漫 - 卡通美女短片小魔女貼影片免費影片觀賞無碼a片網美女pc交友相簿美女交友-哈啦聊天室中文a片線上試看免費電影下載區免費試看a短片免費卡通aa片觀看女優影片無碼直播免費性感a片試看日本AV女優影音娛樂網日本av女優無碼dvd辣妹視訊 - 免費聊天室美女交友視訊聊天室080免費視訊聊天室尋夢園聊天室080苗栗人聊天室a片下載日本免費視訊美女免費視訊聊天
看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA
A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊做愛聊天室plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home