MA State Rep, Kathi-Anne Reinstein

From Marty Klein’s blog Sexual Intelligence:

Massachusetts state representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein has introduced a bill making it a crime for anyone over 60 to pose nude or sexually for a film or photo. The person taking the photo—whether a lover, artist, or commercial porn maker—would also face jail time.

Adding insult to injury, the proposal amends a bill designed to punish those who make child pornography. It treats fully functional adults who happen to be over 60 the same as children under 18; it explicitly takes away their right to consent to be photographed in a lascivious way.

From the legal blog The Legal Satyricon:

Massachusetts State Rep, Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D) is targeting adult entertainment involving models over the age of 60 as well as private sexual communications between the elderly (if you can call 60 “elderly” anymore) and private sexual communications among the disabled. See State Puts Porn Pervs in Sights, Boston Herald. The measure misses the mark and as it is an affront to the dignity of the elderly and the disabled alike with a heaping helping of unconstitutionality to round out the bad legislation buffet.

And from the proposed legislation itself:

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.

I don’t have words to describe how I feel reading this. I can tell you this.

On Tuesday I called Representative Reinstein’s office, twice. On my first call I was told that Ms. Reinstein was in a caucus, but that if I left my name and number she would call me back. I told the woman on the phone with me that I was uncomfortable leaving my name and number because her boss’s proposal criminalized my work and I was not comfortable identifying myself. I asked when I could call back and speak to Ms. Reinstein. The woman on the phone told me to call back in an hour.

An hour later I called back. Again I was told that Ms. Reinstein was unavailable. I asked if I could make an appointment for a time when I could call Ms. Reinstein to express my concerns about her legislation vis-a-vis my work and was told it was her office’s policy not to return calls if a person did not leave their number. I responded (somewhat fatuously) that the policy was unnecessary because it’s impossible to return a phone call if you do no have the person’s phone number. 

I went on to explain that I understood that as a practical matter, Ms. Reinstein had to prioritize what issues she spent time on and whom she spoke with, and that I understood that I was making it difficult by asking for special consideration, but that my circumstance was somewhat unusual, having actually produced a film featuring a 65 year old man in a sexually explicit situation; and that I hoped Ms. Reinstein could find some time in her schedule when I could call her to express my concerns.

At that point I was transfered to her Chief of Staff, to whom I restated my circumstances.

“Are you calling from New York?” Of course they had caller ID. She was going to try and play this off on the constituent angle, which is what I had been trying to avoid by not leaving my number.

“I am calling from a cell phone that has a New York exchange. I am very concerned about this legislation and how it might impact my work.”

“If you are not a resident of our district, we won’t discuss this with you.”

“I fear this legislation will have an impact beyond Ms. Reinstein’s district, and beyond the state of Massachusetts, and I think it would be helpful for Ms. Reinstein to hear my point of view.” 

 At this point Ms. Reinstein’s Chief of Staff said something that indicated that the discussion was over, and that I would not now, nor ever be speaking with her boss.

“That’s an interesting way to address my concerns.”

And then she said it again, and then she hung up the phone.

Calling Ms. Reinstein’s office made me nervous. Contemplating publishing  this post makes me nervous. There’s a voice in my head saying “Why draw attention to yourself. You can do more for yourself and your beliefs by keeping your head down and making more films. The best response to Ms. Reinstein’s legislation is to make another joyful, artful, consensual film featuring adults she would presume to protect. Maybe it’s time to make a sweet, sentimental and sexy film about a pair of wheelchair bound lovers in different states who use the internet  as a way to enjoy each other’s sexual company.”

And then I hear Desiree’s voice. If I don’t call Ms. Reinstein’s office, then who will? If I don’t write and publish a blog post explaining that it scares me when I read things like Ms. Reinstein’s proposed legislation and makes me think it might be better to find another line of work, who will?