RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unless Foley actually engaged in sexual activity with someone underaged *and* the parents of that underaged person chose to press charges, he has not committed any criminal act.
So just having sex with minors is not a criminal act? Pedophilia is ok as long the parents dont press charges? Well, better get ready for a big inlfux of old men into your country...
I love how you slipped the exact terminology I said wasn't applicable in this case. You transform my statement that sex with someone "underaged" (specific in my post to be about teens between the age of 13 and 18) into a statement that pedophilia isn't illegal.
Did you just not read what I wrote? Or do you somehow get your rocks off by deliberately misreading stuff?
The fact is that in most states, sexual activity with someone between the age of 13 and 18 (specific ages vary by state) is not only not pedophilia, but it's only a crime if the parents press charges. It's statutory rape because a minor is assumed to not be legally able to consent to sex. The parents may choose to press charges or not at their own discretion. Most states have a mandatory charge applied if the child is under the age of 13, with the parents having no choice. The charge applied in those cases are usually child molestation (a totally different charge).
The terms may change and the exact ages may change, but the laws do make a *huge* distinction between sex with someone pre-pubescent, and sex with someone who's post-pubescent, but still under the age of majority. Confusing the two for the sake of conversational impact is disengenous at best.
Quote:
Man, when an odl Senator starts emailing random 16-year-olds sexually implicit messages, you can assume it's not to form some philosophical book club with the kid. This whole story stinks of pedophilia, it seems odd that you're the only one not finding it slightly disturbing.
Don't put words in my mouth (or fingers as the case may be). I didn't say I don't find his actions "disturbing". My argument is that many are using terms and mixing and matching events in order to make this "more disturbing" (or perhaps "as disturbing as possible").
Silly me. I'm looking at what he actually did. Not what he might have done, or what I think someone who writes such emails might do in other situations. So far, all I've heard is that he sent some sexually inappropriate emails and text messages to some former pages who were also underaged (but not "children" in the biological sense).
My point is that even if he'd had sex with them, it might not result in legal charges against him. So far, no one's shown any evidence that he actually engaged in any sexual activities with any of these teens.
That leaves us with him sending sexually explicit emails and messages to teen boys. Ok. Fine. But that's not illegal. Not unless the content of the messages is specifically designed to arrange for a meeting with the intent of having sex with said minor (that *is* the wording of the federal laws). You can't be charged with a crime simply for sending sexualy explicit content to a teen. Otherwise, we'd all be in violation of federal law on multiple occasions. You have to actually attempt to arrage a meeting with said teen, with the purpose of sex.
Show me a transcript of an email or text message in which he does that. If you can't, then the worst we're talking about is questionable ethics. That's certainly sufficient reason for someone to step down from his congressional seat. But that's hardly reason to go on a witch hunt, or look for some "child endangering conspiracy".
Additionally, has anyone actually read anything to indicate that he sent any messages to teens who were actually working as pages at the time? Every article I've read say's "former page". It's hard to tell for sure if they mean that in the context of being a "former page" *today*, or whether the teen was a "former page" at the time of the email. If it's the latter, then he also hasn't violated any ethics with regards to the page program either.
There's a whole lot of rhetoric and speculation in this case. I'm simply cautioning folks to avoid making massive assumptions with minimal facts. Of course, you'll all do it anyway (as the media is already doing quite well). It'll be another in a long line of big media events that are all about the speculation about what happened, but in 2-3 weeks, when the actual facts are known, and it turns out to be a lot less then what was speculated about, you wont hear about it because the media doesn't tend to run that sort of story.
We'll see, but I've seen enough of this exact sort of story to detect the pattern. I'm not defending Foley. I'm questioning both the motives and reasoning behind the wild speculation and innuendo surrounding his actions. Everything from the misuse of terms to the mixing around of what was known, by whom and when is pretty obviously aimed at maximizing the rhetoric value of the event. I find that a bit (ok more then a bit) dishonest.
Oh. And as to Mr. Dictionary below. You're missing something. Pedophilia is not a legal term. It's a medical one (psychological actually). The term "child" medically means "pre-pubescent". You certainly are not trying to argue that one is medically/biologically a child until 18 in one state, but magically reach biological adulthood if he/she crosses a state line into one that legally defines majority at age 16 or 17...
You can't be a pedophile if you have sex with a 17 year old in one state, but you're not if you have it with the same 17 year old in another state. The term is very specific to biology. While it is commonly misused (and I comment about this misuse whenever I see it), that does not make that use of the term correct. It just means that a whole lot of people misuse it.
He doesn't need to! 
