Here’s what I don’t get. Why does he have to be guilty of a criminal offence? Why can’t we just say that he is guilty of being a crappy human being and be done with it?
Gotta nitpick that. In Mississippi, for example, the age of majority is 21.
If we’re going to be complete, could Foley also be charged with providing alcohol to minors? Some of those exchanges talked about getting together for drinks (of the stronger-than-a-Coca-Cola-kind, anyway).
18-year-olds may not vote? Marry without permission? Sign contracts?
Good enough for me. I can see the poetic justice in him being prosecuted under a law he helped to write. But I still think it’s rather screwed up that he can be prosecuted for talking about sexual stuff to minors over the internet when actually having sex with with them is legal.
Can vote. Not sure about marriage. Can’t sign contracts unless emancipated. Are entitled to receive child support until 21, unless emancipated.
Why stop there?
Let’s say Foley is not in his 50s, but was 25 at the time of the first incidents, the legal minimum age to become a Congressman in Florida.
And let’s say the first incident was not several years ago but just last year, so Foley is now 26, just 10 years older than the pages with whom he’s had allegedly inappropriate contact, rather than nearly 40.
Let’s also say that those teenaged pages are not just male but also include some females.
And let’s say that Foley is not a vaguely doughy insurance-salesman-looking guy but is instead a square-jawed, black-haired hardbody who was an underwear model before he was elected.
Aw, what the hell, let’s say Foley is black.
Let’s further assume that all of the pages Foley allegedly approached have juvenile criminal records and institutional histories, and that their presence on the Hill is part of a work release and restitution program.
And let’s stipulate that Foley is not a human being, but a Cylon.
And let’s say that he has carried with him a Cylon recording device from which tapes can be produced to document every aspect of his behavior over the last ten years, including all details of all meetings and personal interactions, including his thought patterns at all times.
And let’s say, just for fun, that these records provide indisputable evidence that Foley has not undertaken, or even contemplated, any actions that on review could be considered even remotely questionable, legally or morally.
Now, in this hypothetical situation, can he be found guilty of anything?
What’s your point? I kept the same persons, at the same ages, performing the same actions, only assuming both were in jurisdictions where the age of consent was 16 (which may in fact be the case here).
The age of consent may be 16 in those states, but these young guys didn’t actually give consent just by virtue of being 16. I thought most of them got schkeeved out and stopped responding to Foley’s increasing requests for creepier & creepier conversation. At least.
I’m not a lawyer and all that, but if I’m 52 I don’t think I can continually ask you about your penis just because you’re 16 and it would be legal to have sex with you in your state.
Translation?
I thought “schkeeved” was a mid-westernism. Means grossed out or freaked out. “Ooh, I don’t like the big black hairy spiders. They schkeeve me out.” Or, “when I saw that big ugly spider, I was totally schkeeved.”
Can’t say for sure it’s a real word. I’m not going to get yelled at for being in Great Debates again am I?
Debating whether the kids are 16 ,17, or 18 qra irrelevant. There is no age limit for harassment. However if you want to play that way,im ing and asking if he saw how long the other pages penis es were is entirely inappropriate and indefensible. That also is not age based.
Well, I’m not going to yell at you, just correct your spelling. I’ve always seen it spelled “skeeved”. Perhaps the extra letters confused those responding to you?
Any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.
He didn’t induce, entice, or coerce anyone to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.
Exactly my point.
So, does anyone have a factual answer to the OP? Is it illigal to solicit a minor for sex over the internet as Captain Amazing said, even if that minor has reached the age of consent?
Could you be charged with “corrupting the morals of a minor” as AskNott mentioned? If so, would that really be fair since each state has set its own age of consent? Wouldn’t that also mean that one could be charged with corrupting the morals of a minor for talking dirty to a 20 year old in Mississippi?
I don’t think we have enough info on whether or not he could be charged with harassment, because we don’t know how willing or unwilling any of the pages were.