Hacker News Reader

Comment by technothrasher | Hacker News Reader

There is actually no trespass law in Massachusetts for unimproved land, even if posted with signs. So we theoretically have "freedom to roam" in wilderness areas, even if privately owned. However, nobody I've ever talked to seems to know this, including various police officers, and so there seems to be a 'folk law' understanding that you cannot freely roam in such places.

View on HN

Side note: Call me a treehugger but the use of the word "unimproved" to refer to the last remaining shreds of wildlife not yet paved over and replaced with Starbucks strikes me as the most dystopian fucking shit.

Yeah, I'd call it unspoiled or pristine instead of unimproved.

The large swaths of seldom-used private land in the US really grind my gears. It’s the perfect example of the “I’ve got mine” mentality that a lot of Americans have.

Visiting Europe, where most private land has access ways (and I believe laws regarding shared use, in some cases) gives feelings of respect towards both neighbors and the earth, which should (in my and woodie guthrie’s opinion, at least) be a shared experience.

I’m not sure if it’s at all related to the first point, but in America, it would probably be more common for visitors (or ‘trespassers’) to leave someone else’s land worse than they found it (when compared to the shared respect generally found in Europe). Speaking in broad strokes, of course.

Looks like MGL c. 266, § 120 is the source here. It does say that as long as the land is "improved or enclosed" and has signs posted, you still can't trespass. It's unclear to me if "improved or enclosed" is meant to be exhaustive or is illustrative -- I think that in effect, this would come down to the court's interpretation.

https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/cha...

Can you point to a source for your belief? Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but it seems legally improbable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com