[catholicfreeper]

I guess my question here is "is there a crime sending sexually suggestive IM's to 17 year old males"? I

f not I think we need to quit calling this a crime. I don't know the answer to that but since no news show has even produced a statute or referenced a Criminal Codal article I am having big doubts

[dandelion]

Crime or no crime, the Democrats are hoist by their own petard. If it is a crime, then they themselves are complicit due to the very fact that they hid the evidence for over a year...

But if it's not a crime, then Foley is merely guilty of being "gay", and they may be accused of intolerance for "outing" him for purely political reasons.

Either way, the Democrats cannot win on this issue. Whether Foley is a criminal or merely immoral, the Democrats will have a very hard time playing the "what did they know and when did they know it" game, considering that they themselves knew about Foley's proclivities first - and did nothing.

[conservative in nyc]

I guess my question here is "is there a crime sending sexually suggestive IM's to 17 year old males"?

Under Florida law, it very well may be (Some of the alleged Foley IMs were sent from Florida):

847.0138 Transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device or equipment prohibited; penalties.--

(1) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Known by the defendant to be a minor" means that the defendant had actual knowledge or believed that the recipient of the communication was a minor.

(b) "Transmit" means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail.

(2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

847.001 -- Definitions: As used in this chapter, the term:

(6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it:

(a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors;

(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

(c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

A mother's breastfeeding of her baby is not under any circumstance "harmful to minors."

(8) "Minor" means any person under the age of 18 years.

[nevergore]

First, federal law defines a minor as under 18 however most state sexual predator statutes define a minor as young as 14 and as old as 18.

There are numerous felonies here if authorities would like to pursue not to mention the fact that Foley was the minor's employer and he saw the boy on several occasions after the IM's were sent.....meeting most federal and state statutes regarding solicitation and sexual pandering.

That technicality should be good to bury him in a prison for 5 years or better which for a little pansy butt boy like Foley will be a death sentence.....

[Doofer]

I guess my question here is "is there a crime sending sexually suggestive IM's to 17 year old males"?

I was listening to Drudge radio today and he was saying that the minimum age of over the Internet is 18 years of age and this is a federal law. Is he correct? I don't know.