Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: null and void

“Huh? The Mann act on steroids?”

The Mann Act requires an actual female vicitm, I believe. So these newer laws designed catch internet predators certainly seem broader.

“No requirement to cross those pesky state lines...”

The Mann Act is federal law, these newer laws are state laws.

“Apparently arranging a meeting for sex with a minor is A-OK, but driving to it isn’t?”

Actually showing up demonstrates intent more than internet chat does.

“Sooooo, if one of these miscreants arranged to have the tyke come to them, it would be legal?”

That does not follow at all. The existence of a law criminalizing one specific behavior does not impute, logically, either criminality or legality to other specific behaviors.


20 posted on 08/16/2010 11:59:34 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: swain_forkbeard

True. But I find this the moral equivalent of charging someone who shoots up a dance club with “discharging a firearm within city limits”.

Sorta misses the real crime, doesn’t it?

(OTOH, I bet it allows the cops to seize the car without due process, hold the car for extortionate towing and storage penalties and/or sell it at auction as a revenue source)...


22 posted on 08/16/2010 12:06:02 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 569 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson