[nicmarlo]

I do not know of what the Feds are seeking information on....and I don't know if they have "particular" jurisdiction over ALL internet traffic.....we shall probably learn more, as I am unfamiliar with internet laws, although, I assume, it is a federal, rather than state, jurisdiction.

[nicmarlo]

and why the heck are you not watching the SUPER BOWL? (you know, the game where men chase around a brown spherical ball, and in between times, there are really good commercials, for once? : )

[aristeides]

Well, I'm not sure exactly what the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" precisely entails either, but notice that that part of section 2243 requires the knowing commission of a sexual act, not just an attempt, or the crossing of a state line with the intention. At least as the story has been reported so far, we still have no evidence that Ritter actually engaged in such an act with a minor.

Also, I hadn't focused on the ages the statute mentions until now. Crossing the state line has to be with the intent to engage in a sexual act with someone less than 12 years old. So even the 14-year-old in Ritter's case does not qualify. And the other prong, where the sexual act has actually been committed, has to be for someone younger than 16, so that, in Ritter's case, only the 14-year-old comes into question, and it sounds as if Ritter's e-mail to her was too vague to be the basis of a criminal action.