Communicating with minors is now a crime

[bigjim]

Careful Jim peel your thinking.

Thinking is bad when it comes to matters relating to sex. Before some idiot accuses me of it I am not advocating that it is a great idea for a 41 year old man to try to bugger a "boy".

I am just wondering loud how painfully stupid our "laws" are in regards to sexual matters here in the US. I wonder if any country has ever been able able to deal with this issue in a manner that is both consistent and fair. Balancing both freedom and protection from exploitation is a tough challenge.

One thing for sure, religious rhetoric brings nothing to the party.

 

[jimpeel]

Thinking is bad when it comes to matters relating to sex.

Usually, in these matters, it is the one-eyed-monster-with-a-mind-of-its-own that makes the decisions.

 

[another okie]

Absolute statements are dangerous.

"Bottom line--there is NO reason for an adult to attempt to meet, or want to meet, or state an intention to meet a young child in any clandestine way. There is NO reason to EVER contact a child like this without their parents. PERIOD."

OK, I'll think of one. The child of a terrorist calls the FBI and asks to meet an agent.

Here's another. A child who has been removed from his home due to neglect is constantly meeting his guardians or foster parents without his parents.

I'm sure I could think of a dozen more in a few minutes.

This is why it's hard to write good laws. There are exceptions to almost everything. So if you wrote a law using the language of the quoted material, there would be some problems.

 

[tyme]

TheBadOne, sure, the police say he was trying to pick up the "minor," but then they say they tried to arrange the meeting and Mark Mej refused. Then they arrested him anyway. Sounds like a desperate bunch of officers if you ask me. Regardless of whether the guy's a child molester or not, they arrested him and the only evidence they have is material he may have sent to or received from the "kid." As I pointed out in an earlier post, there's much more obscene stuff on the internet. If they're going to prosecute someone who hasn't even agreed to meet an alleged minor, what's next?

 

[TheeBadOne]

tyme

That is just an article from a newspaper, none of us really know what happened and won't until the case either goes to trial or he pleads. Then the reports can be viewed upon personal request by anyone. Hopefully someone interested and nearby will do so and truly inform us of what happened.

 

[Gray Peterson]

The federal law, which is cited at: http://www.webistry.net/jan/law.html is eighteen whether or not the state law is lower.

The pictures and indecent material provisions due apply to people under 18, but not sex.

Most of you think that's it's illegal to go across state lines to have sex with minors. That is not the case.

Here's the actual laws:

(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Sexual Act With a Juvenile. - A person who travels in interstate commerce, or conspires to do so, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, or conspires to do so, for the purpose of engaging in any sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Chapter 109A of Title 18, United States Code says:

(a) Of a Minor. - Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who -
(1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and
(2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

Essentially this means that while you cannot share photos, you can still go across state lines have sex with a person under the age of 18 as long as they are at least 16 and not violating local law.

Very wierd.

 

[jimpeel]

If a forty-year-old guy in California, where the age of consent is eighteen, calls a fifteen-year-old kid in Hawaii, where the age of consent is fifteen; which law is he operating under if he propositions the kid -- California or Hawaii?

 

[Orthonym]

Remember the rumors about Sir Arthur C. Clarke?

That his knighthood was held up because of an alleged taste for small boys? Now, please make no nasty conjectures about my tastes here, (in literature OR sex) but I was a big fan of his when I was a kid - read "Earthlight" in class in fourth grade. (Teacher was so happy I was reading SOMETHING she didn't seem to mind it wasn't official school material)

Had we had the Internet then, had my literary hero offered really good help with my math homework in exchange for, uh, Platonic and Socratic services, well, uh, gee, what would I have done? Would I have regretted it later?

Children tend to obey grownups, especially if they think the grownups are really cool.