[trashcanbred]

First, I cannot believe I am on this forum arguing about such things. Legally speaking Foley probably broke some laws. See post 678.

Second, I am at my wit's end trying to figure out how anyone can say anything other than a complete condemnation of Foley. No need to say anymore than that. No innuendos about the pages being democrats, no remote justifications or anything along those lines are necessary. Just complete and forceful condemnation.

Anything else is just moral relativism. Period.

[MOgirl]

Hello,

Do you not see that NOBODY here is defending Mark Foley? Do you not get that the Libs are attempting to link Foley to the entire GOP leadership? Do you not understand that the media is deliberately misleading the American public about this story, in order to help the Libs win? Think.

Glad to be here, MOgirl

[tobyhill]

The law that is linked in post 678 was signed into law on 7/7/2006 after numerous activist judges struck down other attempts to create child protection laws for the internet. Previous court rulings had ruled that perverted language even to a child is just exercising free speech and there must be intent to solicit for sex in a physical setting and unless there was visual pornography involved. Until 7/7/2006 there was no real enforcible law for merely explicit language even to a minor. The problem they will have with prosecuting Foley is that anything written prior to 7/7/2006 can not be enforced because there was no standing laws (laws not struck down) to prevent it.