You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #28: I don't think he had to even attempt a hook-up. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I don't think he had to even attempt a hook-up.
Part of an amendment to internet predator laws that I found on another site:



`(A) The term `material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that--

`(i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;

`(ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and

`(iii) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

`(B) The terms `sexual act' and `sexual contact' have the meanings assigned such terms in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code.'.


++++++

Doesn't say anything about meeting up with the minor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Does the age of consent have any bearing on the Foley case? Lasher  Oct-05-06 01:13 PM   #0 
  - age differential, also power differential might  uppityperson   Oct-05-06 01:14 PM   #1 
  - It's like sexual harassment on the job, it seems to me. Also, that big  lulu in NC   Oct-05-06 01:15 PM   #2 
  - You are correct on both counts but I'm looking for a legal distinction  Lasher   Oct-05-06 01:37 PM   #22 
  - Even if the page was 30  AllegroRondo   Oct-05-06 01:15 PM   #3 
  - FL LAW would apply---the new one 18 as far as I know.  rodeodance   Oct-05-06 01:16 PM   #4 
  - But if a sexual act did not occur in FL their law would be academic (EOM)  Lasher   Oct-05-06 01:38 PM   #23 
  - yes  blogslut   Oct-05-06 01:16 PM   #5 
  - Even if the sex was technically legal, this is clear sexual harassment  Caution   Oct-05-06 01:16 PM   #6 
  - No 1. IM sent from Fla. (some of them) 2. This is about the Rep leadership  underpants   Oct-05-06 01:18 PM   #7 
  - it ain't sex unless someone got diddled  sui generis   Oct-05-06 01:18 PM   #8 
  - then why did Foley work on legislation about cybersex?  uppityperson   Oct-05-06 01:21 PM   #10 
  - I'll admit I don't know the specifics BUT  sui generis   Oct-05-06 01:27 PM   #18 
     - Onus on phone company?  uppityperson   Oct-05-06 01:32 PM   #20 
        - your ISP and the provider get sued.  sui generis   Oct-05-06 01:40 PM   #24 
  - What about all those Dateline shows? None of them 'diddled'  Debi   Oct-05-06 01:24 PM   #16 
     - this wasn't an attempted meeting  sui generis   Oct-05-06 01:35 PM   #21 
     - I don't think it has to be an attempted meeting to be against the law  Debi   Oct-05-06 04:29 PM   #30 
     - Because the guys physically showed up for sex with someone they thought  Garbo 2004   Oct-05-06 01:41 PM   #25 
        - I don't think he had to even attempt a hook-up.  Debi   Oct-05-06 04:27 PM   #28 
           - Which is why I said Foley may still have run afoul of Fed law. (Like the  Garbo 2004   Oct-05-06 09:48 PM   #31 
  - Foley press for an Internet Law and 18 is the age of consent for it  wakeme2008   Oct-05-06 01:19 PM   #9 
  - Yes but it requires a state law violation.  patcox2   Oct-05-06 01:23 PM   #13 
  - Yes, but his own internet laws are stricter (can only engage  soothsayer   Oct-05-06 01:21 PM   #11 
  - Ex post facto. (n/t)  kiahzero   Oct-05-06 01:24 PM   #15 
  - Legally, yes. Politically, no. eom  geek tragedy   Oct-05-06 01:21 PM   #12 
  - No, it's the violation of trust, violation of ethics  Warpy   Oct-05-06 01:24 PM   #14 
  - Not if it violates Federal Law  atreides1   Oct-05-06 01:27 PM   #17 
  - Federal law re: internet communications for sexual exploitation,  Garbo 2004   Oct-05-06 01:28 PM   #19 
  - Very good, Garbo. This is exactly what I sought.  Lasher   Oct-05-06 01:53 PM   #27 
  - legally, yes; politically, no  Bill McBlueState   Oct-05-06 01:42 PM   #26 
  - did he actually have "contact" with any of these young men?  tigereye   Oct-05-06 04:28 PM   #29 
     - We don't know - yet.  Lasher   Oct-06-06 01:37 AM   #32 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC