The Age of Consent In Washington D.C. Is Sixteen.

P

Prakosh

Senior Member
That's right, so the Foley sin or lack of same becomes even more problematic from a legal standpoint.
 
Damocles said:
Is it really? It really doesn't matter though, does it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it really is...It was all over CNN and another station. And no it doesn't really matter all that much, ironically because Foley put a stronger threshold in the internet solicitaion of a minor bill. So if he met in D.C. it was OK, but the San Diego meeting if one actually occurred and from the IM transcript I posted earlier it appears it did then California law would apply, and if he met with a teen in Florida which again appears possible then the Florida law would apply, but the Federal Internet law passed by Foley himself may be what finally seals the deal for him..
 
I dont think Floley is going to get prosecuted... but at least he is out of congress!
 
He broke sexually lewd or solicitation laws for the Internet...
Internet, child exploitation Laws

He will be charged....

And the age of consent in DC is 16 but I believe if they are under 18 and chaste (a virgin), and then coerced by an adult of 4 years or more in age, in to sexual behavior it might also be against the law.... well at least I think it is in Massachusetts?
 
Care4all said:
He broke sexually lewd or solicitation laws for the Internet...
Internet, child exploitation Laws

He will be charged....

And the age of consent in DC is 16 but I believe if they are under 18 and chaste (a virgin), and then coerced by an adult of 4 years or more in age, in to sexual behavior it might also be against the law.... well at least I think it is in Massachusetts?
Click to expand...

That all sounds pretty bizarre, with the current state of the education system one might need college math to get it right, no wonder McMurphy wound up in the looney bin. Especially if she was 16 going on 30 like he told the judge...Wait a minute that was Oregon, wasn't it...no matter I'm sure the law is equally confusing out there.
 
Care4all said:
He broke sexually lewd or solicitation laws for the Internet...
Internet, child exploitation Laws

He will be charged....

And the age of consent in DC is 16 but I believe if they are under 18 and chaste (a virgin), and then coerced by an adult of 4 years or more in age, in to sexual behavior it might also be against the law.... well at least I think it is in Massachusetts?
Click to expand...


What sexually lewd or solicitation laws forr the internet are you talking about?
 
maineman said:
so, therefore does the bitching about 1983, n'est ce pas?
Click to expand...
Of course. There were no charges filed in 1983 because it wasn't illegal -- I thought that was obvious. Okay, obvious to anyone but Dix, but let's not stumble over trivialities.

It's quite likely too that Foley broke no laws. That won't matter much come November, however.
 
Damocles said:
Is it really? It really doesn't matter though, does it?
Click to expand...
Nope. It don't.

I admit to . . . seriously conflicted feelings on this fact. Part of me is, I must confess, more than a little gleeful at the comupance the R Party has just been handed. At the same time, though, it really wasn't illegal and the fact that Foley's being tried in the press for something that probably wasn't even a crime is disturbing.

Still, I do know that law isn't everything. Indeed, the law only covers a patch of our ethical and moral responsibilities. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right, in other words.
 
uscitizen said:
Laws no, but he broke his trust with his supporters. A far worse thing in politics.
Click to expand...
Either you dance with them as brung ya or suffer the wrath of the scorned. In this case, the wrath of the scorned parents, prudes and prigs, which is wrathful in the extreme.
 
The man was a champion of child-protection laws specifically dealing with the internet and IMs... What he did is more than just "wrong"...

I just hate hypocrisy...
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Either you dance with them as brung ya or suffer the wrath of the scorned. In this case, the wrath of the scorned parents, prudes and prigs, which is wrathful in the extreme.
Click to expand...
the kind of supporters that the far right attracts will turn on ya in a heartbeat.
 
:lolup:

See? Much wrath. Heaps and heaps of it.

I'm not so judgmental, myself. We're all guilty of hypocrisy now and then, in my view. The fact is, though, that my reaction and the reactions of those like me don't matter an iota in this instance. As previously noted, I'm not of Foley's constituency. Indeed, he and his have done their level best to exclude, marginalize and revile me and mine for the past twelve years. Now they're stuck with only those who love judgment and smiting people as spectator sports. Those who regard compassion as the eighth deadly sin.

Isn't it ironic? :D
 
OrnotBitwise said:
:lolup:

See? Much wrath. Heaps and heaps of it.

I'm not so judgmental, myself. We're all guilty of hypocrisy now and then, in my view. The fact is, though, that my reaction and the reactions of those like me don't matter an iota in this instance. As previously noted, I'm not of Foley's constituency. Indeed, he and his have done their level best to exclude, marginalize and revile me and mine for the past twelve years. Now they're stuck with only those who love judgment and smiting people as spectator sports. Those who regard compassion as the eighth deadly sin.

Isn't it ironic? :D
Click to expand...
LOL. Not on this level. The guy was IMing these kids while writing laws against IMing these kids... That takes a special level of hypocrisy that most of us will never reach.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. Not on this level. The guy was IMing these kids while writing laws against IMing these kids... That takes a special level of hypocrisy that most of us will never reach.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I'll agree with you that far.

I never know what I'm capable of until I really try, though. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top