So I was reading an article on advocate.com the other day and at the end in the description of the author it said in part “[author’s name] is a pseudonym. He is under 18 and cannot legally come out on this website.”
Huh? What law would prevent someone under the age of 18 from coming out, in print, on a website or anywhere else?
Maybe it has something to do with the rules of the Web site. I can’t think of any actual legal principle that would apply.
Did the article suggest that the author had engaged in any activities that are sanctioned? My guess is the website’s just playing it safe.
When I was in high school, I participated in several chats/boards where kids would come out. No one ever said it was a problem - one far-fetched guess might be that the board is afraid of being held responsible if someone contacts the kid through their website, but that’s only a guess.
I suspect it was not that the author of the article was legally sanctioned from coming out, but that The Advocate might be stricken with legal sanctions in some areas that they would as soon not lose circulation in for allowing a person under 18 to identify himself as gay publicly (since we all know that it’s a choice, right? :rolleyes: )
Not the best answer in the world, but that’s my suspicion.
In more juresdictions than you’d think, homosexual sexual activity is illegal. This might be one reason the board has a CYA attitude. There are also “contributing to the corruption of minors” laws. We know that being gay is really about sex, right?
When I was a gay kid, I was not allowed to attend the only group in my area and these were the reasons given. That was in the 70’s but unfortunately, plus ca change plus ca le meme chose.
I just want to make sure I get it - Polycarp is being ironic in the first quote, I get from the sarcastic smiley. I’m can’t tall if that’s the case about Shoshana’s quote. I mean, I get the first point is debatable (an no, I don’t want to debate it). But – an I’m trying to tread lightly here – being gay really is about sex, isn’t it? I mean, what else would it be about?
Sorry for the hijack – I don’t mean to turn the thread to a GD, just trying to clarify Shoshana’s comment.
Thanks, Skammer,
I was being sarcastic, but I hate emoticons. Next time I’ll [sarcasm] …[/sarcasm].
I am in the midst of increasingly impolite exchanges from the editor of Psychology Today, who is getting pretty nasty about the raft of shit he’s getting because PT is running an ad for Nicolosi’s book, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
[exasperated]Like we don’t have better things to do with our time than having to respond to this stupid, dangerous stuff?[/exasperation]
Thank you for the clarification, Shoshana. I thought maybe you were being sarcastic, but I wasn’t sure, since I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone claim that being gay wasn’t about sex. (But that’s a topic for another thread!)
Please excuse my cluelessness!
IAAL (ex-prosecutor). Actually, I suspect that Shoshana is pretty much on target. Specifically, in California, for instance, CDM (Contributing to the Delinquency of Minors) is defined thus:
“Every person who commits any act…which causes or tends to cause or encourage any person under the age of 18 years to come within the provisions of Section 300 of the Welfare & Institutions code…” is guilty of CDM.
W&I 300(d) gives the juvenile court jurisdiction over cases where the child has been sexually abused (as defined by PC 11165.1, which in this case = statutory rape, among others). So cobble these together, and you get a longshot prosecution for CDM for “encouraging” the minor to be sexually abused (i.e. statutory rape, which, as most of us know, is not mitigated by the minor’s consent). I don’t write these things, I just read 'em.
Sorry, forgot to cite…CDM is Cal. Penal code 272. Oh, and:
This and the previous post are not legal advice. Neither of these posts are an offer or acceptance of legal counsel. Consult competent counsel in your jurisdiction before taking any action that may be contrary to any law.
Thanks Redhawke.the.bard. It’s nice not to be the only one who has to put disclaimers and limits on posts about my area of expertise (in my case, psychology).