I just note that the logic of the law is gappy. If a respondent has been adjudged six years ago, (a) does not apply because six yeas ago is not never; (b) does not apply because nothing occured in the past five years; and (c) does not apply because no two incidents occures in the last seven years. --

This answer seems to focus on the fine to conclude that the claim is grossly exaggerated, where the question asks about both arrest and the fine. The possibility of arrest appears throughout the cited statutes; might some not think being imprisoned for up to a year to be the main threat? Also, I think a much more reliable way to say that a certain kind of prosecution is unlikely is not an armchair interpretation of the statutes, but what prosecutors have actually been doing with the statute esp in bargaining (though that's much harder to find), or at least judges' interpretations.

@Hasse1987 It's probably worth pointing out that any statute that purported to create any punishment for making an honest report to the government or police in good faith would be unconstitutional. Since the first amendment was incorporated, a State cannot punish people for reporting anything to any part of the government without violating the constitution.

@Hasse1987 The answer already covers that. The law is quoted, and it only applies to the owners, and is only a problem if they actually prevent the person from using the restroom due to their gender. Hence the claim "If you see something suspicious and report it to the authorities, you may be arrested" is false, as the law does not cover suspicious activity nor anyone reporting it.

@trlkly Well, my point is that we can answer the literal question asked in the title, "In Massachusetts, can someone be “arrested and fined up to fifty-thousand dollars” for reporting suspicious behavior in a women's bathroom?" with no because the first amendment, as incorporated against the states, would make any such law an unconstitutional infringement on the right to petition. We don't even have to look at the bill to know that's nonsense.

@ZachLipton You are correct that it doesn't protect reports made in bad faith or reports of non-emergencies to communication channels reserved for emergencies. It's quite well established that it extends to reports to law enforcement. I don't recall the best citation for calling the police being covered by right to petition (there was a lawsuit that was dead on where a store manager set off a silent alarm which lead to a shootout and the report was held absolutely protected) but Venetian v. NLRB is good enough. See Noerr-Pennington too.

@trlkly Actually the answer says that the 50k fine is restricted to owners. My point was that that fine isn't necessarily as bad as imprisonment for a year. And the law quoted in the answer says that imprisonment is a possibility for all "who shall aid in or incite, cause or bring about, in whole or in part, such a violations". That kind of language is broad enough to capture non-owners who bring their observations to the attention of the owner.

@DavidSchwartz I agree that would be unconstitutional but I don't see the relevance of that. If you're trying to say that the law being unconstitutional precludes a certain reading, I have to disagree. Plenty of legislatures pass statutes to send a certain message when everyone knows they will be invalidated once tested (off the top of my head, in MA just a couple years ago, the statute banning taking pictures that was aimed at getting rid of people surreptitiously taking salacious pictures of girls on the subway).

The ...or incite, cause or bring about, in whole or in part does rule out the second bullet point in the conclusion, and requires some expansion of the first one. The rest stands pretty strong regardless.

"•The person being reported would have to prove in court that they were acting in accordance with their "sincerely held" gender identity, and provide evidence of that gender identity." That seems like a horrendous legal quagmire. As a minimum wage worker at a swimming pool you may be responsible for on the spot assessment the sincerity of gender identity expression of the trans-woman or pervert using a dress and a loophole to get into the women's locker room.

@Hasse1987 The claim asked about is, "if you see something suspicious and say something to authorities, you could be the one arrested and fined up to fifty-thousand dollars". If we don't understand that to mean that such an arrest and fine would be lawful, then of course the answer is yes. It is always possible for you to be arrested and fined for anything. The question has to be reasonably understood as asking whether the proposed law would actually make such an arrest and fine lawful. And the answer to that is no, since the State has no power to make such an arrest and fine lawful.

@Hasse1987 The question ends with "In Massachusetts, can someone be "arrested and fined up to fifty-thousand dollars" for reporting suspicious behavior in a women's bathroom?". Of course the answer is yes if we don't understand that as asking whether such a thing would be lawful. Of course it can happen. And the first amendment is a conclusive answer to that -- no, such an arrest and fine would not be lawful regardless of what the state's laws say.

"Thus if someone claims a certain gender identity for the purpose of doing anything 'improper' in a women's bathroom, then any protection granted by S.2407 doesn't apply." The problem here is that people have dramatically different views of what constitutes doing something 'improper.' To many people (probably including the people making the claim in the question,) a person born male entering a women's bathroom would itself be doing something 'improper' under most circumstances. That's extremely vague language for a law.

@reirab improper would likely mean anything that wouldn't be allowed normally within a bathroom. However it also assumes that the person is lying which is in and of itself enough to prove improper.

I'd also like to point out as well that calling the police or reporting to nearby security that a person is doing something suspicious within the restroom (such as attempting to peer into other stalls) cannot possibly result in punishment. Even the owner of an establishment could not get in trouble in such a situation for removing the person from the bathroom as they are not removing them for gender identity but rather for doing something improper. In fact, even those who identify as their natural born gender could still engage in such behavior, so we know it is not discrimination.