Engaged In Any Sexual Solicitation Lately?

READER DISCRETION:  THIS POST NOT FOR KIDS!!!

If you live in Utah, you've probably already committed multiple acts that could be considered sexual solicitation under Utah's newly passed, two-page, broadly-worded HB121 which sailed through the legislature and governor's desk without opposition from either party.  As background, consider the May 20th Tribune article "Escorts: Utah law makes acting sexy illegal".  The article, while commendable, stops short of analyzing the full repercussions of the new law.

The broadness of HB121 originates from lines 46-8 which reads:

(2) An intent to engage in sexual activity for a fee may be inferred from a person's engaging in, offering or agreeing to engage in, or requesting or directing another to engage in  any of the acts described in Subsection (1)(c) under the totality of the existing circumstances.

That is to say if one as much as "engages in" any of the activities in Subsection (1)(c), they may have their behavior inferred to mean "an intent to engage in sexual activity for a fee" subject only to a vague, undefined, open-to-interpretation-by-a-judge phrase "under the totality of existing circumstances."

The activity in Subsection (1)(c) is defined as:

(i) exposure of a person's genitals, the buttocks, the anus, the pubic area, or the female breast below the top of the areola;
(ii) masturbation;
(iii) touching of a person's genitals, the buttocks, the anus, the pubic area, or the female breast; or (iv) any act of lewdness.

Thus in theory, if you have touched or exposed your genitals, buttocks, anus, pubic area, or female areolas, (and thus "engaged in" sexual activity by definition of lines 46-8) your actions may be inferred to constitute an "intent to engage in sexual activity for a fee" and thus sexual solicitation subject to interpretation by a judge.

The absurd broadness of this law could lead the following actions to be considered sexual solicitation (even if done in private):

• Going to the bathroom (exposing and/or touching one's genitals)
• Bathing, taking a shower or undressing (lewdness, exposure)
• A physician who requests you to remove clothing (exposure, lewdness)
• A TSA agent looking at your nudy backscatter image or giving you an aggressive patdown
• Breastfeeding (exposure of the female areola)
• Consensual intercourse (exposure of genitalia)
• Applying sunscreen on your buttocks or other areas (touching prohibited here)
• Scratching of the groin or other areas due to jock itch, etc (again, no touching)
• Dozens of other possibilities

I predict this one won't make it through the courts, but until lawmakers come to their senses or judges rule, keep your clothes on and don't touch.  And just maybe blogger Connor Boyack isn't so off target in his Invitation to Repeal bad and excessive legislation.

McAdams Means to Micromanage Mom (Updated)

Utah State Senator Ben McAdams (D-02) thinks we need more laws to enable us to be good citizens. McAdams is working on (le.utah.gov) and has verbally committed to introduce (SL Tribune, Dec 29 2010) a bill short-titled "Leaving a Child Unattended in a Motor Vehicle." The bill seeks to make criminals out of parents who leave their children unattended in a motor vehicle.

While no one is advocating children be left alone in a motor vehicle, these decisions should be left to the parent, not the state. Parents are already charged by law with the safe rearing of their children. If something were to happen to an unattended child, the parent could under existing state law be held accountable. Why do we need more than this?

In the article "More Nanny State" Paul Mero of Utah's Sutherland Institute responds to the proposed McAdams bill by pointing out that leaving a child unattended doesn't necessarily harm the child, or cause a crime:

And then there’s this sentence from the [SL Tribune] article: “McAdams said the problem with using existing child-abuse laws in Utah to prosecute people is a requirement in the law to prove that the child was harmed.” Imagine that – someone has to prove that a crime has been committed to be able to prosecute the crime! (Mero Moment, Jan 4 2011)

In his blog today "Legislating Away Your Liberties", Connor Boyack would have us take a serious look at the incessant cry for expanding legislation:

The constant wave of new laws does not reflect a productive legislature which takes seriously the powers entrusted to it by the people. Rather, it reflects a messy patchwork of legislative “fixes” for a wide variety of ever-present problems that distract and emotionally captivate those who cry out “there ought to be a law!” (Connor's Conundrums, Jan 24, 2011)

Connor continues that the solution is to simplify law and thus liberate the citizenry:

Rather than legislating, start repealing. Instead of focusing inordinate amount of time on generally unimportant statutory tweaks, look for ways to restore lost liberty by removing entire chunks of the Utah Code. In short, we need less laws, not more. (Ibid.)

I couldn't have put it any better than Connor. Perhaps we need a 45-day de-legislation process following our current session to get rid of all the micromanaging laws we have encumbered ourselves with. We certainly don't need a micromanaging Mom bill such as McAdams plans to unleash this session.

++++ Update 1/27: McAdams' bill now has life as S.B. 124