Freethought & Rationalism Archive

meritocrat · 05-16-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

Incedent exposure IS a crime.[/B]

I'm saying it shouldn't be.

Maybe, but is it right for flashers to cause others distress?

Quote:

There was a case in Texas recently. They finally relented from public pressure. It seemed the pictures depicted a sex act--a minor touching a woman's breasts. aka, a baby breastfeeding!

Again, how does one define pornography?

Quote:

By US law, if that ID turned out to be fake you can still get in trouble.

That seems logical.

Feather · 05-16-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat

That seems logical.

How so? If all the data I have indicates a person is "of legal age" why should I be arrested and jailed for screwing the person if that person is not, in fact, "of legal age?" That just doesn't make any sort of sense.

meritocrat · 05-16-2003, 02:29 PM

If you have sex with someone under the age of consent (who displays a fake ID), then techically that is illegal. I don't see how any confusion can arise when a case such as this is in a court of law.

Loren Pechtel · 05-16-2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Maybe, but is it right for flashers to cause others distress?

Note that I'm distinguishing flashers from mere indecent exposure.

Walk down the street naked, I don't think it's a crime. Go up to someone and expose yourself--different situation, I would call it a crime.

Again, how does one define pornography?

If one is the government, however one wants.

That seems logical.

We don't hold the bartender or convenience store clerk liable for a fake id, why should we hold the sex partner liable?

Loren Pechtel · 05-16-2003, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat
If you have sex with someone under the age of consent (who displays a fake ID), then techically that is illegal. I don't see how any confusion can arise when a case such as this is in a court of law.

The point is that to commit a crime there must be intent to do a wrongful act. (Whether or not you realize the act is illegal.) If you *reasonably* believed the act you committed is one that is in fact legal they can't get you. When the Traci Lords problem was discovered the retailers had to quickly pull her tapes. However, there were no child porn prosecutions as they reasonably believed the tapes to be legal. (For those of you who don't know about her--porn star who used a fake ID and made movies at 16. Under 18 = kiddie porn.)

beyelzu · 05-16-2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
We don't hold the bartender or convenience store clerk liable for a fake id, why should we hold the sex partner liable? [/B]

actually they do.

I work for a cstore company delivering novelty items but sometimes I pull shifts still. I started out working as a clerk. anyway the point is clerks are taught to look at the id and if they feel uncomfortable to not make the sale. because it is against the law to sell tobacco or alcohol to a minor regardless of what any id says.

I agree that the law is stupid but that 's just the way it is.

Loren Pechtel · 05-17-2003, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
actually they do.

I work for a cstore company delivering novelty items but sometimes I pull shifts still. I started out working as a clerk. anyway the point is clerks are taught to look at the id and if they feel uncomfortable to not make the sale. because it is against the law to sell tobacco or alcohol to a minor regardless of what any id says.

I agree that the law is stupid but that 's just the way it is.

I thought you were expected to try to spot fake ID's but if you failed to spot a high quality fake there was no sin.

TealVeal · 05-18-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suzanne**Atheist
But that was historical nudity..

And iirc they had to pay a fine.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-16-2003, 02:29 PM	#13
meritocrat Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 2,608	If you have sex with someone under the age of consent (who displays a fake ID), then techically that is illegal. I don't see how any confusion can arise when a case such as this is in a court of law.

05-16-2003, 03:26 PM	#14
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by meritocrat Maybe, but is it right for flashers to cause others distress? Note that I'm distinguishing flashers from mere indecent exposure. Walk down the street naked, I don't think it's a crime. Go up to someone and expose yourself--different situation, I would call it a crime. Again, how does one define pornography? If one is the government, however one wants. That seems logical. We don't hold the bartender or convenience store clerk liable for a fake id, why should we hold the sex partner liable?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.