Does the age of consent have any bearing on the Foley case?

[Lasher]

I need some help on this. The age of consensual sex in Washington, DC and Virginia is 16, and 18 in Maryland.

http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

I've just mentioned these three areas because anyone involved in Congressional duties could reasonably be expected to be there on a routine basis.

Does this have any bearing on the Foley case? All the pages were at least 16 years old, so it seems statutory rape could not have occurred unless it happened in Maryland. How could he have been a child predator if the pages were 'of age' according to these state laws? Are other statutes relevant?

[uppityperson]

1. age differential, also power differential might

[Mist]

2. It's like sexual harassment on the job, it seems to me. Also, that big

old hypocrisy thing...

[Lasher]

22. You are correct on both counts but I'm looking for a legal distinction

You can be guilty of sexual harassment and you can also be a hypocrite and still not be a child predator.

[AllegroRondo]

3. Even if the page was 30

it would still be considered sexual harassment at the very least.

[rodeodance]

4. FL LAW would apply---the new one 18 as far as I know.

[Lasher]

23. But if a sexual act did not occur in FL their law would be academic (EOM)

Edit: Oops I just noticed downthread that at least one IM was sent from FL.

[blogslut]

5. yes

n/t

[Caution]

6. Even if the sex was technically legal, this is clear sexual harassment

It's cut and dried. Foley was the boss, these kids were in his employ (that money wasn't involved is irrelevant).

[underpants]

7. No 1. IM sent from Fla. (some of them) 2. This is about the Rep leadership

[sui generis]

8. it ain't sex unless someone got diddled

or almost-diddled, at least not in any court that has to prosecute and make a sentence stick.

Everything else is just a creative writing exercise if argued well, and chances are it will be argued well.

[uppityperson]

10. then why did Foley work on legislation about cybersex?

If it isn't illegal, why did they legislate it?

[sui generis]

18. I'll admit I don't know the specifics BUT

"cybersex" is not illegal between adults on the internet.

I imagine if you know or believe someone to be underage and you attempt to do something like actually meet with them you're really in hot water at that point and forward.

Otherwise, the onus is not on the participant but on the provider to be sure that all participating "members" are adults. I guess that means the "provider" in this case is the phone company?

It gets a little hazy. Anyway, what a marvelous diversion from Iraq. 15 U.S. soldiers dead this week as of yesterday, and we're talking about dirty instant messages.

Good grief, we deserve the republicans.

[uppityperson]

20. Onus on phone company?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That is an even more asinine excuse than "i am an alcoholic". What about personal responsibility? What about someone who KNEW he was talking to an underage page, like foley?

Most of us are busy multi-tasking, though I do agree that having the repubs go down over sexual predation of pages rather than destroying the constitution or continuing the occupation of Iraq is appalling.

[sui generis]

24. your ISP and the provider get sued.

Assinine or not, that's the law.

Whether you like it or not that's how his lawyers are going to play it, and he'll probably win. You could also make the argument that "knowing" he was talking to an underage page, he also knew that talking alone is not illegal. Not ethical, not moral, not acceptable, certainly, but not illegal.

We can feel as superior and smug as we like, but I have no confidence that he's going to go to jail (or desire to see that happen), or that there aren't a half-dozen reasons this could be successfully prosecuted considering how evidence was obtained and that the public debate has ruled out a "fair" trial.

We're charging down the wrong track here. We can hang the republicans with much better than a conviction if we play this pawn correctly.

[Debi]

16. What about all those Dateline shows? None of them 'diddled'

It seems attempted 'diddling' of a minor over the internet is sufficient to chase a guy down, mash his face into the ground, and handcuff him and stick him in the back of a police cruiser on national television. What's the difference?

[sui generis]

21. this wasn't an attempted meeting

I'm not playing devils advocate for fun, but we're focusing on irrelevancies. Redefining "sex" to send this guy to jail is inappropriate, and will eventually punish adults everywhere for this idiot's transgressions.

If we want to hurt the repedocan party, it sure won't be by sending people to jail, possibly under a gag order, since they'll just agree that's what should have been done. We need to let the guy run around out there like a loose cannonball, pissed off and furious at his own party and wagging his tongue.

It's not like anyone's going to be hiring him to watch the kids anyway at this point.

[Debi]

30. I don't think it has to be an attempted meeting to be against the law

The sexual content of the conversations when he knew he was IMing a minor might be sufficient. :shrug:

[Garbo 2004]

25. Because the guys physically showed up for sex with someone they thought

was below the age of consent laws in the jurisdiction. When they showed up that proved their intent to engage in sex with an underage kid. I figure they were arrested under the laws of the local jurisdiction. Were the Feds involved at all in these stings? I'm not a Dateline viewer.

Foley may still have run afoul of the Fed laws he co-sponsored. We also still don't know to what extent he may have succeeded in hooking up in person with any of the kids.

[Debi]

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.

[Garbo 2004]

31. Which is why I said Foley may still have run afoul of Fed law. (Like the

one he co-sponsored.)

What the other poster was asking though was why the Dateline folks were arrested on the spot and what was the difference.

[wakeme2008]

9. Foley press for an Internet Law and 18 is the age of consent for it

:)

[patcox2]

13. Yes but it requires a state law violation.

His law makes it illegal to lure a minor to commit an act that would be illgal under state law, so if consent is 16 in that state, then there is no violation of the federal law.

[soothsayer]

11. Yes, but his own internet laws are stricter (can only engage

in that kind of talk with 18 y.o.s and up, if you are 18+ yerself, is I think what his law sez).

So all his IMs are illegal, and he can't claim ignorance of the law cuz he WROTE the thing! Or sponsored it or whatever.

[kiahzero]

15. Ex post facto. (n/t)

[geek tragedy]

12. Legally, yes. Politically, no. eom

[Warpy]

14. No, it's the violation of trust, violation of ethics

combined with a 12 year coverup that put scores of pages at risk from a sexual predator.

The age of consent's got nothing to do with it.

[atreides1]

17. Not if it violates Federal Law

If Foley was trying to entice a minor for sex over the internet, then Federal law comes into play.

And, someone who knows correct me, but under Federal law a minor is anyone under the age of 18.

[Garbo 2004]

19. Federal law re: internet communications for sexual exploitation,

solicitation with minors, defined as someone under 18, appears relevant.

The IM's are not in themselves a matter of local age of consent laws which apply to in-person contact. Also, as far we know to date, the internet communications happened after the pages were out of the program and back in their home states.

If Foley had actual physical sexual contact with pages or former pages, then local age of consent laws would be relevant.

[Lasher]

27. Very good, Garbo. This is exactly what I sought.

I was surprised to see so many responses so quickly, and some others besides you have focused on legal distinction as you have. And there might be other laws that have bearing.

It's just a matter of time before I and others here have to react to a claim that what Clinton did was just as bad since Lewinsky and the pages were older than the age of consent. More importantly, I needed to sort this out in my own mind. I understand now.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. legally, yes; politically, no

The precise crime Foley's charged with, if any, depends on what the law says about the age of consent among other things. But from a political point of view, the technicalities of the law aren't important. What he did was creepy, and the creepiness of it rather than the legality of it is what matters to voters.

[tigereye]

29. did he actually have "contact" with any of these young men?

[Lasher]

32. We don't know - yet.

I heard on the news a couple of times that he met one of the pages in California. But so far there hasn't been any report of the sort of physical contact in a sexual way.